Since our last communication, we have discussed issues with the leading appellant agents and legal counsel experienced with AST.
The original concept advanced at the Musqueam hearing – that the definition of “in use” is different for the AST than in general assessment was not accepted by the B.C. Supreme Court, and while the B.C. Court of Appeal gave leave to appeal from that decision, the appeal was discontinued before further steps were taken (the BC Government granted the Musqueam First Nation exemption). To overturn that Supreme Court decision would likely require a new appellant going to the B.C. Court of Appeal seeking a different result.
Additional avenues of appeal relate to:
- Changing when the subject is ‘in use as a residential property”.
- Delays at City Hall
- Definition of a “dwelling property”
In Use as Residential Property
The current guideline that governs when use changes is “when construction has started”. There is possible argument that this definition is too limiting. While the DP process is ongoing, the project is in use. This is a different issue than the Musqueam case.
Definition of “dwelling property” in the School Act
Another unexplored issue in relation to AST is how Class 1 classification under s. 1(1)(a) fits with the “dwelling property” definition in the School Act. There might be a “use” so as to fall outside the subsection (a) definition of “dwelling property”, but someone who ultimately argues this issue will need to ensure they don’t inadvertently step into other aspects of the “dwelling property” definition.
Delays at City Hall
Potentially if the process was slowed down by the City, then it is not the developers’ fault that development was not continuous or completed.
Current Status
The Appeal Board has requested that appellants provide documentary evidence to support that claim. The assessor will decide if any properties fit into their definition. The balance of the appellants in our group will have to decide what steps they want to take. Each million dollars of deduction is $4000 in tax savings.