Yellow Cab of Winchester

!"#$%&'()$*+,-'&.$/('--(
01.2)-3(-'$41'51.1+$""678
(540)678-TAXI
To: State Tax Commissioner
RE: Exectrans and Courier Service LLC appeal to the State Tax Commissioner
Thank you Mr. Commissioner, Ior allowing us to respond to our Local Commissioner oI Revenue's response to our appeal
regarding 58.1-3503 oI the State Tax Code. We received Ms Burkholder's response several days ago and have analyzed her
letter thoroughly. To make sense oI her response, we have broken her issues up into relevant arguments which the
Commissioner has highlighted in order to substantiate her position.
1urisdiction
The commissioner oI revenue quoted 58.3983.1(D5) which states: Tax Commissioner shall not make a determination
regarding the valuation or the method oI valuation oI property subject to any local tax other than a local license tax.
Response: We agree that the code, does in Iact, conIine the scope oI the Tax Commissioner relative to valuations and
methods oI valuations. However, we did not ask the Tax Commissioner to make a determination on the valuation or the
method oI valuation per our original appeal letter which was submitted in November and resubmitted in February. We
speciIically ask the Tax Commissioner to:
1. Require the Commissioner oI Revenue to create a methodology Ior 'Taxicabs' relative to the assessment process
which will reasonably lead to the Iair market value oI the Taxicab Category in 58.1-3503.
2. Require the Commissioner oI Revenue to adjust our tax bill Ior the previous three years - utilizing the 'Taxicab'
valuation methodology instead oI the current methodology , which we maintain is unlawIul because oI her
misunderstanding oI 58.1-3503(a3) and 58.1-3503(b)
In Iact, the controlling jurisdiction, which Ms Burkholder did not cite, is 58.3983(E4) which states in part that:
II the determination oI the Tax Commissioner does not set Iorth a speciIic amount oI reIund due, or otherwise
requires the commissioner oI revenue or other assessing oIIicial to undertake a new or revised assessment that will
result in the determination oI a reIund oI taxes previously paid, the commissioner oI revenue or other assessing
oIIicial shall promptly commence the steps necessary to undertake such a new or revised assessment, and provide
the same to the tax payer within 60 days oI the date oI the determination oI the Tax Commissioner, or within 60
days aIter receipt Irom the taxpayer oI any additional inIormation requested or reasonably required under the
determination oI the Tax Commissioner, whichever is later.
Because 58.3983(D3) states that: 'AIter determining that the Tax Commissioner has jurisdication, he shall provide the
commissioner oI the revenue or other assessing oIIicial the opportunity to respond to the appeal and participate in the
proceedings, we assume that the Tax Commissioner has already determined that he has proper jurisdiction.
Subsequently, we do not believe that we are required to provide a disputed amount however, we contend that our appeal
does describe the beginning oI a remedy, the error in the assessing methodology and the grounds Ior which we rely on Ior
our appeal. Because this is a matter oI law and the way in which our commissioner interprets it; our appeal could be likened
to an order oI 'mandamus.

08/26/2011- Initial Appeal to the commissioner

In the past three years, we have had the discussion oI 'methodology assessment many times with the commissioner. She
Iorced us to adhere to her methodology in our initial appeal. We complied with her initial request 'in protest because it
was the only means to get to the next step in the process which is to appeal to the Tax Commissioner in order to require her
to 'change the methodology because we believe the current method is not supported by 58.1-3503(a3) or 58.1-3503(b); nor
will it 'reasonably' lead to the Iair market value oI 'Taxicabs.
The Commissioner stated: 'One must wonder if a vehicle of even lower assessed value could even meet the safetv,
comfort and reliabilitv standards to serve as a public convevance`.
With all due respect, we question whether the commissioner understands the legal deIinition oI 'Fair Market Value as
documented in the Tax Commissioners cited opinions and speciIically 07-103.
Fair Market Value is mutually exclusive oI saIety, comIort and reliability standards where the commissioner opines in her
previous response; that there must be a relationship between those qualities and the FMV. On the contrary, she has excluded
the very quality oI a taxicab that detracts Irom its FMV and subsequently our lawmakers have recognized this quality as
well. That quality is that its a 'taxicab thus creating the exception in 58.1-3503(a3) that Iorces the commissioner to
recognize that a taxicab, antique cars as well as handicap vehicles 'must be valuated diIIerently than the uniIorm method
oI 'vehicles in 58.1-3503(a3).
The DMV codes taxicabs on the title and registration and the mere Iact that its a taxicab drastically reduces the resale value
as well as the 'Market in which one would purchase it. As a vehicle with the branding 'salvage or 'salvage rebuild
drastically decreases the FMV oI that vehicle because it is a 'previously' crashed vehicle. Likewise, taxicabs are similarly
branded because oI their excessive wear, tear and modiIications. Any other interpretation oI the aIormentioned code section
is utterly absurd.
The commissioner assumes that other taxicab companies purchase used taxicabs Irom one another thus justiIying those that
will purchase taxicabs. That is unreasonable and there is no basis Ior that considering the taxicab and transportation
industry. Our taxicabs are reduced to scrap when they are removed Irom service normally.
Fair Market Value
In the 'Rulings oI the Tax Commissioner Document# 07-103, the Tax Commissioner lays the Ioundation Ior 'Fair Market
Value and speciIically states that:
FMV is a subjective judgment. Generally, it is deIined as the price a property will bring when oIIered by one who
desires, but is under no obligation, to sell it, and the buyer has no immediate necessity to purchase it. See
Tuckahoe Woman's Club v. County oI Richmond, 119 Va. 734, 101 S.E.2d(571(1958).
The intent oI the VA Code 58.1-3503, when plainly read, is to ascribe a uniIorm Iair market value to all tangible personal
property within its prospective category(58.1-3503(b)). Most oI the Categories have 'methodologies assigned to them Ior
deriving their respective FMV. The Category 'Vehicles which is labelled A3 has its own parameters whereby the
commissioner is to establish FMV Ior all vehicles 'EXCEPT (7), (8) and (9); (8) being the category 'Taxicab. Category
(7) is 'Antique Vehicles and Category (9) is handicapped vehicles.
We contend that these 'EXCEPTIONS are there Ior a purpose and that 'purpose which was and is realized by our law
makers, to acknowledge that Ior whatever reasons; those categories which are excluded Irom A(3) shall not be subjectively
valuated Ior their respective FMV by using the methodology deIined in A(3).
The problem and the crux oI the disagreement between the commissioner and our understanding lies here. Ms Burkholder
has previously submitted her 'Valuation Methodology Ior Taxicabs 'which she contends is her Taxicab methodology
according to the bottom oI her previous letter where she states:
'The City oI Winchester OIIice oI the Commissioner oI the Revenue is uniIorm in assessment methodology with
the category oI taxicabs

With all due respect, again, the commissioner's methodology is uniIorm within the category(3) Vehicle and not (8)
Taxicabs; where she has placed 'Taxicabs. (see her methodology). It appears that she is reIusing to read the
'EXCEPTION in category (3) else she would have submitted a speciIic methodology which is uniIorm Ior 'Taxicabs only
and not vehicles in general. The Iact is there is no other valuation other than the category (3) methodology Ior vehicles
which has been previously submitted Ior this appeal.
Further Evidence to Support our Claim
We have contacted several other municipalities in our surrounding area including Loudoun County, where a thriving public
transportation industry is in operation. The commissioner in Loudoun County has lawIully implemented the Taxicab
valuation methodology according to 58.1-3503. See the attachment which accompanies this letter. Their methodology
takes the low loan value oI said vehicle, and reduces it by 50. This is very reasonable and comes up with a FMV on a
yearly basis, however, our commissioner makes Taxicab owners apply Ior exonerations on every vehicle that we own
every year. So, iI we own 20 vehicles, we have to apply Ior exonerations Ior 20 vehicles, 20 times a year; and iI we
purchased them at diIIerent times oI the year, we will be apply Ior exonerations all throughout the year, potentially. This is
overly burdensome and creates an undue hardship not to mention it 'still' will not lead to a reasonable FMV Ior the category
'taxicab'.
Lastly, we have included a bill oI sale receipt along with the valuation oI our commissioner Ior the respective vehicle as an
example Ior the Tax Commissioner to review.. In this common scenario, the commissioner has valued our vehicle at least
5,000.00 higher than what we actually paid Ior each vehicle Irom a reputable dealer in VA.
II you notice the word 'manual located on the commissioner's valuation printout. According to the treasurer, this means
that the commissioner has actually overridden the DMV sale price which was input when we presented the bill oI sale to our
local DMV. The commissioner or one oI her employees actually changed the assessed value Irom what we paid Ior the
vehicle, to the 'high retail price located in the NADA; instead oI believing what was recorded at the DMV. See attached
pictures oI the documents in question.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our commissioner oI revenue does not adhere to the the state code by implementing a uniIorm methodology
Ior the taxicab 'category in 58.1-3503. The commissioner implements a uniIorm methodology Ior vehicles and thus
classiIies 'taxicabs' as vehicles which 58.1-3503(a3) Iorbids.
We also know that the way she construes this code does not agree with surrounding jurisdictions which have regulated and
mature public transportation that adhere to local ordinances. They have a taxicab valuation process and methodology. We
contend this is mandatory and not permissive because oI the word 'except and 'shall which is used in 58.1-3503(a3).
Lastly, her methods are overly burdensome, create undue hardship and will not reasonably lead to the Iair market value oI
'taxicabs as the lawmakers have deIined and separated Ior valuation purposes. Assessing a vehicle at over 8,000.00 in
which the lawIul bill oI sale was Ior 2995.00 is absurd. Other surrounding jurisdictions would have taken 50 oI low loan
value(taxicab valuation methodology) 4300.00 and reduced the assessed vehicle value to $2150.00.(see loudoun county
va attached methodology). Please contact us Ior any Iurther requirements or inIormation.
Regards,
Laura Fabrizio.

R. Cadmus Jr

http:// ww
w.loudoun.gov/FAQ.aspx?TID=67

Commissioner of revenue "vehicle assessment"