On December 2, 2011, Councilmember Jack Evans introduced the “Real Property Tax Assessment Evidence Clarification Act of 2011″ (B19-602). The legislation would amend D.C. Code § 16-1317, which concerns civil procedures for condemnation proceedings initiated by the District of Columbia; specifically, it would add the following sentence: “The owner of property subject to the condemnation proceeding may elect to present as evidence the assessed value of the property, as determined by the Office of Tax and Revenue, if the assessed value for the tax year in which the taking occurred is greater than the District’s appraised value placed upon the property.” The legislation appears to be a response to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals’ decision earlier this year in DeSilva v. District of Columbia, 13 A.3d 1191 (D.C. 2011), which reviewed a trial court’s final judgment in a condemnation proceeding initiated by the District. The Court of Appeals held, in relevant part, that the trial court properly refused to allow the condemnee to introduce into evidence the assessed tax value of the subject real property for the purpose of proving the property’s market value. Id. at 1199. In support of this holding, the Court of Appeals said that it was bound by the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Johnson & Wimsatt, Inc. v. Reichelderfer, 50 F.2d 336 (D.C. 1931), which it quoted as follows: “‘It is widely recognized that appraisements of property by tax assessors for purposes of taxation are not reliable guides of market value, and consequently not admissible in condemnation proceedings.’” DeSilva, 13 A.3d at 1199 (quoting Johnson & Wimsatt, 50 F.2d at 337). This evidentiary rule is reflected in the following standardized civil jury instruction regarding condemnation proceedings: “You may not consider the assessed value placed upon the property for taxation purposes as an indication of the property’s value. You should not allow yourselves to be influenced by the assessed value in any manner.” Standardized Civil Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia § 22.14 (2011 rev. ed.). The Real Property Tax Assessment Evidence Clarification Act of 2011 would abrogate the aformentioned case law by allowing a condemnee to introduce as evidence the assessed tax value of the subject real property if the assessed tax value for the tax year in which the taking occurred is greater than the appraised value placed upon the property by the District for the purpose of condemnation. The legislation has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. To retrieve an electronic copy of the legislation from the D.C. Council’s website, click here. To retrieve an electronic copy of the opinion in DeSilva v. District of Columbia from the Court of Appeals’ website, click here.

About the Author: Douglas C. Melcher is a licensed attorney and an active member of the District of Columbia Bar with more than a decade of experience practicing law in the District of Columbia. Mr. Melcher may be contacted by e-mail at dmelcher@DCLaw.net or by telephone at (202) 521-0603. To learn more about Mr. Melcher, click here.