Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Fairfax County property tax appeal

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
As another reference, I received my tab from Arlington several weeks ago with a 2013 S60 vehicle value of $57,449. Property tax sucks. At least Arlington gives a little relief for "clean special fuel" vehicles. The county reduces the tax on $17k worth of value - from 3k-20k - by 23%.
 
Well, without an assessment or tax bill in hand, there is nothing I can do. As I noted in a previous post in this thread, Fairfax County told me in a telephone conversation that until they figure this out, I have no tax bill due. The representative suggested that it would be figured out in time for me to receive a tax bill that would be due around February 2015.
 
Well, without an assessment or tax bill in hand, there is nothing I can do. As I noted in a previous post in this thread, Fairfax County told me in a telephone conversation that until they figure this out, I have no tax bill due. The representative suggested that it would be figured out in time for me to receive a tax bill that would be due around February 2015.

My question is: will that be retroactive and thus pro-rated for the interim time?
 
My question is: will that be retroactive and thus pro-rated for the interim time?

Of course, fairfax county once hit me with 3 years of property tax from the previous owner of my house. It was totally within their rights, I did manage to work with them however. Ultimately we owe them tax and they will want it, I suggest ya'll put that money aside and sit and wait, earn some (minimal) interest.
 
Of course, fairfax county once hit me with 3 years of property tax from the previous owner of my house. It was totally within their rights, I did manage to work with them however. Ultimately we owe them tax and they will want it, I suggest ya'll put that money aside and sit and wait, earn some (minimal) interest.

That's exactly the sort of (painful) reason I'd do the exact same...
 
Bad news from the county. One bright spot -- at least the "incorrect" base price reflects the 7500 tax credit. Its does not appear that county is going to move on its stance that there are different Tesla Base models... think Elon will put in a call :)

fryfrye


---
I appreciate that you’ve had considerable discussion with Heike Burke of my staff and I understand your position. As much as I’d like to accommodate you, I do not believe a value reduction on your Tesla is warranted. The basis of the law as Ms. Burke has previously referenced is to assess the fair market value of all vehicles and to achieve uniformity in assessment. Both are constitutional and statutory requirements under Virginia law.

I understand that you view the 85kWh battery to be an option. I would value your input if I am mistaken, but it’s our understanding that based on the VIN pattern of your vehicle, this version of the Model S Tesla only comes with the 85kWh battery. It’s our understanding that you can’t purchase this VIN pattern with a lower wattage battery; i.e., it comes standard on the version of the Model S you purchased.

Be that as it may, in reference to “options” I believe you are referencing our website wherein we state that “For new model year vehicles, the assessed value is based on a percentage of MSRP. This is the base-model MSRP, not including options.” This is somewhat of a misnomer and bears some editing on our part. The “base-model” MSRP is only used in cases where we cannot distinguish exactly which vehicle you have. For instance, some manufacturers started using duplicate VIN patterns within a model range, making it impossible to specifically identify which model version the owner had. The language on our website is actually a hold-over from days past when this problem was more prevalent. Today, especially with VIN decoders we obtain from manufacturers, we are much better equipped to identify the specific vehicle being valued. This is the case in your instance, wherein the VIN pattern is defined as having the 85kWh battery. In cases where we are able to identify the exact model version, we do not use the base model MSRP; we use the correct MSRP corresponding to the specific vehicle. As Ms. Burke indicated, the January MSRP we used is the $72,400. This appears to be correct.

As to the $7,500 income tax credit, as Ms. Burke stated, this is an after-the-fact financing incentive which reflects a policy goal of the government. It is not a reduction to the market value, but a credit provided on your income taxes. A good example of this can be seen in the sales tax which you paid to the State of Virginia at the time of purchase. The state sales tax was based on your full purchase price of $92,020, without any adjustment or reduction for the $7,500 income tax credit.

Finally, you asked about the apparent inconsistencies between Fairfax and Loudoun County. In truth, while all localities follow state law in the assessment of vehicles, there is some local latitude and there are some statewide differences. For example, the law requires that we use a recognized pricing guide, but doesn’t specify which value we are to use. Some localities use loan value, some use retail value, and some use average trade-in as done in Fairfax County. The goal of law is that localities assess property at its fair market value as of January 1 of the tax year. For new model vehicles, Loudoun uses 90% of the MSRP for current year models, and 75% for 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] year models. We assess at 95% in the 1[SUP]st[/SUP] year and 90% for 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] year models. We believe that this best represents fair market value and is in better harmony with the third year once actual sales values appear in the pricing guide. Our experience has been that were we to assess a lower percentage in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] year, taxpayers would often experience an assessment increase in the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] year, which causes an obvious disconnect (the inference being an underassessment in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] year). We are uniform in our application as required by law, and I believe our process reasonably approximates fair market value.

In your case, you purchased your Tesla in September 2013 for $92,020, and paid state sales tax on this full amount. Our 2014 assessment is $65,160, reflecting 29% depreciation over that four month period. Based on my review, I am unable to conclude that the assessed value of $65,160 is beyond the fair market value as of January 1, or that our assessment is non-uniform in its application. Based on this, I respectfully decline your appeal. I will be sure to review this matter again once the pricing guide values are published next January.

I appreciate the length and thoughtfulness of your appeal and I am sorry I cannot accommodate your request.

Sincerely,

Kevin C. Greenlief, Director
Department of Tax Administration
Fairfax County, Virginia
 
This isn't all bad. I was anticipating paying tax on the $69,900 figure of a 60 (assuming that the 85 is an option) and not getting a reduction based on the tax credit. So it looks like they are bring the $79,900 down to $72,400 -- not sure if this is inadvertent since it looks like they didn't intend to make a deduction in value based on the tax credit. On the other hand, the non-performance 85 owners could all go in there with our Tesla window sticker showing the 85 battery as an option, but we might risk having the tax credit reduction taken away. On the other hand, the tax credit directly effects the market value. No second-hand buyer is going to fork over anything more than the MSRP minus the tax credit.

I say non-performance because the NADA guide, at least, lists the performance as a separate model.
 
I think Mr. Greenlief is being reasonable and executing the intent of the law fairly. I'd love to pay less in taxes, but thinking of the battery as an option just doesn't make sense. It isn't optional- you need a battery for the car to function.

It would be nice if the state and/or county would provide tax relief to EVs to promote their adoption. We've already paid a premium for the car, and the associated sales tax on that premium. At the end of the day I think we're just feeling nickel and dimed for trying to save our environment, etc. That's not Mr. Greenlief's fault. That's the state legislator and/or the county board's fault.
 
I think Mr. Greenlief is being reasonable and executing the intent of the law fairly. I'd love to pay less in taxes, but thinking of the battery as an option just doesn't make sense. It isn't optional- you need a battery for the car to function.

It would be nice if the state and/or county would provide tax relief to EVs to promote their adoption. We've already paid a premium for the car, and the associated sales tax on that premium. At the end of the day I think we're just feeling nickel and dimed for trying to save our environment, etc. That's not Mr. Greenlief's fault. That's the state legislator and/or the county board's fault.

+1.
 
Ok, but can't we explore the FMV a bit further? Tesla's trade-in program will subtract a dollar for each mile, plus $10,000 (cost of being used, doesn't every car lose 10% just by driving it off the lot?), that seems like a more fair value, and it is clearly referenceable online...
(I know I am in Md, but looking to move, so very interested in seeing how this works out.
 
I think Mr. Greenlief is being reasonable and executing the intent of the law fairly. I'd love to pay less in taxes, but thinking of the battery as an option just doesn't make sense. It isn't optional- you need a battery for the car to function.

It would be nice if the state and/or county would provide tax relief to EVs to promote their adoption. We've already paid a premium for the car, and the associated sales tax on that premium. At the end of the day I think we're just feeling nickel and dimed for trying to save our environment, etc. That's not Mr. Greenlief's fault. That's the state legislator and/or the county board's fault.

Having *a* battery isn't optional, but the 85 kWh battery is clearly an option over and above the 60 kWh battery.

What Fairfax seems to be saying is that because this option is accompanied by a change in the VIN number, it is an option they will take into account in the assessment of the car. In other words, they will assess for the value of options they can verify, but won't for options they can't.

On the surface, this seems fair; we all know that there is a big difference in both the MSRP and residual value of a car with the 85 kWh battery. But on the other hand, this seems like a rather arbitrary line, since I don't know that there's any hard and fast rule about what kinds of options have to be included in the VIN.

Whatever--this is all further reason for supporting the abolition of these ridiculous car taxes.
 
That's a "plus", Andrew! (groan...sorry...had to say it!)

Hardy-har. Of course I had to go and do a stupid thing, and order a P85D. The VIN most definitely changes for AWD. Sigh. And I have to pay sales tax.. AGAIN. I wish Virginia deducted the value of your trade-in when calculating sales tax. Many states do this. Sadly, not VA.

With respect to be charging for the 85kWh "option", I think a valid argument is if you could find an ICE car that does not have different VINs between engine sizes (V6 is base, V8 is an option.) That's as close to an analogy that I think you will find, and if you find one, it means they have set a precedent. Argue they have to treat people equally per the law. I realize it's not a perfect analogy; the size of the gas tank would be closer, but.. that doesn't help.
 
Hardy-har. Of course I had to go and do a stupid thing, and order a P85D. The VIN most definitely changes for AWD. Sigh. And I have to pay sales tax.. AGAIN. I wish Virginia deducted the value of your trade-in when calculating sales tax. Many states do this. Sadly, not VA.

With respect to be charging for the 85kWh "option", I think a valid argument is if you could find an ICE car that does not have different VINs between engine sizes (V6 is base, V8 is an option.) That's as close to an analogy that I think you will find, and if you find one, it means they have set a precedent. Argue they have to treat people equally per the law. I realize it's not a perfect analogy; the size of the gas tank would be closer, but.. that doesn't help.

Well, until very recently Tesla listed different power outputs for most of the various models--300 hp for the 60, 362 for the 85, 416 for the P. So that analogy is actually pretty good.