Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in the Gazette’s letters column are those of the letter-writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Gazette’s editors. We also reserve the right to edit letters for space.

Dear Editor

The Gazette’s May 7, 2010 story (“Omitted Assessments Law Change Stymied by Illinois General Assembly”) and the accompanying editorial (“Property Tax ‘Omitted Assessments’ Reign of Error”) contained significant errors and omissions. These mistakes could have been avoided had your paper contacted the Cook County Assessor’s Office before running these pieces.

Since this was not done — resulting in a one-sided news story that reads like an advertisement for Andrea Raila’s tax consulting business — let me describe how omitted assessments work.

From time to time, our office becomes aware of properties that were not picked up in the assessment process. Sometimes we will discover, for example, that a two-story house is being assessed as vacant land, or that a privately-owned property is being treated as exempt because it was once owned by a church. The reasons for these omissions vary. Occasionally, our office makes a mistake. But in the majority of cases, the omissions result from others’ failure to fulfill their legal obligations. State law requires townships and municipalities to forward their construction permits to us; it requires the buyer of a taxexempt property to notify us within 30 days of the sale, and the seller to notify us by annual affidavit.

Unfortunately, these things don’t always happen. When we learn of a property that has not been assessed, we are obligated to issue an omitted assessment notice, which can result in back-taxes for the owner. You could argue that a homeowner whose house was assessed as vacant land for several years and whose tax bill was far less than his neighbors’—or whose house was treated as tax-exempt for no apparent reason — should have been aware there was an issue. You could also point out that, in such instances, other taxpayers are picking up the difference. But leaving those arguments aside — the Gazette’s pieces left them out entirely — the Assessor’s Office gives taxpayers extensive opportunities to dispute the omitted assessment. Moreover, they do not need a lawyer or tax consultant to do so.

When a taxpayer receives an omitted assessment notice, they can dispute it in one of three ways. They can show the property was included in a prior assessment. They can dispute the assessed value our office has placed on it. Or they can show they were a “bona fide purchaser for value.” In the last case, if they can prove the back-tax issue was concealed from them when they bought the property, they will not be held responsible for the taxes.

Our attorneys and staff do a careful analysis of the record, examining the closing statement, the sales contract, re-proration agreements, title insurance and other documents related to the transaction.

This analysis gives us a picture of what the buyer knew. And in many instances, we find that the buyer did not have “actual notice” or “constructive notice.”

Contrary to what the news story said, the timetable for challenging the omitted assessments is flexible. We request that the taxpayer contact us within 21 days of receiving the notice to set up a meeting at some point in the future. Final results are typically issued two to six months after the initial notice. If we end up ruling against the taxpayer, they have the right to sue us in Cook County Circuit Court.

At that point, the Cook County State’s Attorney’s office gets involved and conducts its own analysis. Neither your news story nor your editorial mentioned these remedies.

In addition, the piece contained the following factual errors:

*“Between 2007 and 2009, the number of Cook County property owners receiving ‘omitted’ [back taxation] notices increased 300%.” False. The number of parcels receiving omitted assessments declined 39% between 2007 and 2009, from 3,404 to 2,088.

*“Typically, the Illinois Department of Revenue…will notify the assessor” if a taxpayer purchases a tax-exempt building. False. Under Illinois law, the buyer of an exempt property is required to inform us by certified mail within 30 days of the sale. In addition, owners of exempt property that are not religious organizations must file an annual affidavit with our office to keep their exemption.

*“Notices can go back as far as seven years.” False. With residential property, it is our policy to go back only four years.

Other numerical assertions in the Gazette pieces — eg., that omitted assessments “covered more than 7,000 back tax years” — are unsourced, unsupported, and unexplained.

Sincerely,
Eric W. Herman
Director of Communications
Cook County Assessor’s Office

Editor’s response

We thank the Cook County Assessor’s Office for responding. It is Gazette policy to use multiple sources for articles.

The original version of the article in question was about State of Illinois legislation that would affect the Assessor’s Office, and so besides tax consultant Andrea Raila we spoke to State Representative Arthur Turner, a local representative who is a proponent of the legislation. The article had to be changed significantly at the last moment before going to press, however, when the legislation that had already passed the State Senate was stalled in committee in the House. In the rewrite, the information from Rep. Turner was removed because it was no longer pertinent, giving the impression of the story being skewed toward Ms. Raila’s opinion.

In the 11th hour rewrite, we could not contact the Assessor’s Office directly.

Both Ms. Raila and the Assessor’s Office have been good sources for the Gazette over the years, and we have endorsed Cook County Assessor James Houlihan in his elections several times. The article in question was no more an advertisement for Ms. Raila than our endorsements of Mr. Houlihan were advertisements for him.

Some of the figures Mr. Herman disputes — notices increasing 300%, property taxes covering more than 7,000 back tax years — were in the article as a direct quote from Ms. Raila. As such, it was clear that those figures were her view.

Mr. Herman says it is false that the number of Cook County property owners receiving omitted back taxation notices between 2007 and 2009 increased 300%, and that the number actually declined by 39%. Technically he is correct, but only because it is the year 2007 that was misstated.

The facts are, according to statistics from the Cook County Treasurer’s Office, from 2005 to 2009, assessed valuation rose 359%, the amount of taxes charged went up 252%, the penalty amount rose 2,460%, the total tax due went up 287%, and the penalty per tax bill rose 1,341%.

These are staggering increases that have overburdened the taxpayer and caused members of the Illinois General Assembly to introduce legislation providing some relief.

Mr. Herman says it is false that the Illinois Department of Revenue will notify the assessor if a taxpayer purchases a tax-exempt building, and that “under Illinois law, the buyer of an exempt property is required to inform us.”

When one buys a property, the Illinois Department of Revenue creates a transaction sheet routed to other State agencies, which eventually inform the Assessor’s Office. We believe it is the final burden of the Assessor’s office to get these properties on the rolls, not the taxpayer.

Mr. Herman says it is false that notices can go back as far as seven years. However, it says right on the Assessor’s website: “There is no statutory limitation on the amount of years we can back tax. However, the stance taken by this office is 7 years.”

The Gazette is not the only media outlet that has taken the Assessor’s Office to task over omitted assessments lately. The Chicago Sun-Times’ Mark Brown wrote an article May 19 about several Sauk Village houses that are listed as vacant properties by the Assessor’s Office.

There are problems with omitted assessments, and the General Assembly felt the need to address them. SB 3401 passed the Illinois Senate unanimously, and stalled only in the House. The fact that SB 3401 by law would have extended taxpayers’ time to respond from 21 to 30 days shows that the existing response time is an issue legislators felt the need to address. In addition, SB 3401 would have allowed the taxpayer to go to a second agency to challenge the back taxation — another issue legislators felt the need to address.

We regret any information that was omitted or in error in our original coverage. Nonetheless, we stand by our story.