Fields v. Supervisor of Assessments

Per Curiam. The property owner takes this appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Code (1965 Repl. Vol.) Article 81, § 229 (m)), which affirmed a final order of the Maryland Tax Court, which in turn had sustained a decision by the Appeal Tax Court of Montgomery County, re-assessing appellants’ real property for the levy year 1966. The subject of the assessment is an improved commercial property known as Lot 20, Block 13, seventh election district of Montgomery County, designated as 4709 Montgomery Lane, Bethesda.

The assessment, as finally determined by the appellee, fixed the land value at $34,240.00 and the improvements at $31,600.00, for a total of $65,840.00. The assessment for the immediately preceding period was $11,520.00 for the land and $35,200.00 for the improvements. The appellants challenged the assessment on the grounds that: (1) the properties relied on by the assessor as of comparable value were actually assessed at a less value per square foot than the subject property and that factors bearing on income were disregarded, (2) the methods used by the assessor violated the statutory requirement that there be a “uniform plan” of assessment as provided by Code Article 81, § 244, (3) the assessor failed to properly adhere to the requirement of an allowance for inflation in making the assessment and (4) the appellants were deprived of their constitutional rights ³ when the Tax Court refused to permit any meaningful inquiry into the assessors actions. Despite the formidableness of their challenges to the validity of the assessment, the record reveals that the appellants failed to establish by their evidence any basis upon which a reversal or reduction of the assessment would be warranted.

They did not prove any fault in the assessment itself. The record shows that the assessor in arriving at the amount of the assessment for both land and improvements used the same approach as employed in assessing other commercial properties in the area which consisted of: (1) the reproduction cost method, (2) the capitalization of income, and (3) comparative market data, all of which methods have been recognized and approved by this Court. Tax Comm. v. Brandt Cabinet Works, 202 Md. 533 , 97 A. 2d 290 (1953); Bornstein v. State Tax Comm., 227 Md. 331 , 176 A. 2d 859 (1962), 96 A.L.R.2d 661 . The appellants presented only one witness, as to the value of the property and that was a certified public accountant who testified that the fair market value of the land was $30,000.00 and that of the improvements, $40,-000.00.

He stated that he used a “cash flow” method in arriving at his valuations, multiplying ten times the cash flow to establish value. Judge Pugh in his opinion in the lower court