|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
Copyright 1999 Chicago Sun-Times December 14, 1999 SECTION: EDT; Pg. 45 LENGTH: 651 words BYLINE: Raymond R. Coffey In a column on Nov. 23 I wrote about a curious case in which the Cook County (Tax) Review Board approved a $121,975 property tax assessment reduction for a Winnetka homeowner that cut his 1998 tax bill by about $5,700. The homeowner had made a $500 contribution to Commissioner Maureen Murphy's 1998 election campaign, Subsequently, in 1999, the homeowner's tax lawyer contributed $1,000 to Murphy, $1,500 to Commissioner Jospeh Berrios and $900 to Commissioner Robert Shaw. The taxpayers appeal went to the board in April, and on June 14 it approved an assessment reduction roughly nine times greater than the Assessment Office had recommended. One curious aspect here was that board rejected any reduction for another Winnetka homeowner who presented evidence, including 20 "comparables" showing he was being taxed considerably more than neighbors with similar homes, that was far more detailed and obvious than in the first case. Another was that the appeal from the second man was tagged with a "Q" code, which the board appears to regularly use as an internal signal to reject appeals handled by tax consultants rather than tax lawyers. Murphy told me then that upon review she felt that the reduction in the first case seemed "fair and warranted." Now even more curiously, it turns out that on the day the column appeared, a Murphy aide called the lawyers, by now retained by the second taxpayer, and told them the board wanted to negotiate a settlement. On Nov. 39, the taxpayer settled for an assessment reduction from $192,000 to $131,000 a cut of about $14,500 on his 1998 tax bill. The taxpayer had, in the interim, carried his appeal to the State Property Tax Appeal Board in Des Plaines, where the County Review Board would have to defend a decision clearly outweighed by the evidence. "Uniformity" is the fundamental principle in property tax law ? your tax bill is supposed to be the same as those of your neighbors with similar homes. The taxpayer and his lawyers who made the campaign contributions presented in evidence only two comparable homes, both blocks away. Among the 20 comparables cited by the taxpayer whose case initially was rejected were five homes on the same block. Instead of defending its initial ruling, the board settled. The homeowner gets a $14,500 refund ? but he had to wait for it for a year while getting no interest on it. He also is stuck with a bill from his lawyers. The board was re-created last year to add a third commissioner representing the suburbs on what had been a Chicago-only operation and to make room for a Republican on a Democrats-only agency. That was a worthy reform. But the result also means tax lawyers are being drummed on to come up with even more campaign contributions, which inevitably translate for the public as clout. The current board members are not up for re-election until 2002, but the lawyers already are putting up campaign money. As noted here last month, Berrios collected $65,420 in individual contributions in the first six months of this year, mostly from lawyers. Murphy reported $35,250 in contributions for the same period, Shaw $31,700. State Sen. Miguel del Valle (D-Chicago), who finds the campaign contributions "alarming," is sponsoring legislation to erase the monopoly for tax lawyers appearing before the board and to allow tax consultants, accountants, and other tax specialists to represent taxpayers before the board. He also intends to introduce legislation to prohibit individuals representing clients before the board from making contributions to the board members. His ultimate goal, del Valle says, is to convert the board from an elective position to an appointive agency, as it is in all other Illinois counties. Murphy has told me she saw no problem with the campaign contributions so long as they are open to public "disclosure and sunshine," as they are. CFAT News Source news@fairtaxes.net Contributions by Clout at Tax Review Board |
