235 A.2d 798

5th and Wood Realty Corp. Tax Assessment Case.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.November 28, 1966.
September 26, 1967.

Taxation — Real estate — Allegheny County — Assessment — Uniformity of assessment — Ratio of assessed value to market value — Constitution of Pennsylvania — Article IX, § 1.

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company Tax Assessment Case, 426 Pa. 566, followed.

Mr. Justice EAGEN dissented.

Before BELL, C. J., MUSMANNO, JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O’BRIEN and ROBERTS, JJ.

Appeal, No. 3, March T., 1967, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1964D, No. 1864, in re appeal of 5th and Wood Realty Corp., Abraham Kamber and Samuel H. Rossman from assessment of Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County. Order affirmed; reargument refused October 25, 1967.

Appeal by taxpayer from tax assessment.

Assessment reduced, order by VAN DER VOORT, J. Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County appealed.

Maurice Louik, County Solicitor, with him James Victor Voss
and John F. Murphy, Assistant County Solicitors, and Francis A. Barry, First Assistant County Solicitor, for Board, appellant.

Niles Anderson, Solicitor, with him Justin M. Johnson, Assistant Solicitor, for School District of Pittsburgh, intervening appellant.

Frederick A. Boehm, Assistant City Solicitor, with him David Stahl, City Solicitor, for City of Pittsburgh, intervening appellant.

Page 578

T. Robert Brennan, with him Harvey E. Robins, Leonard M. Mendelson, Gustav W. Wilde, and Brennan and Brennan, for appellees.

OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE COHEN, September 26, 1967:

In this appeal by the Board of Property Assessment, Appeals and Review of Allegheny County (Board) the issues are identical with those presented in the appeal of the Board in the case of property owned by Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company decided this day. The assessment was $2,566,700; the expert witness for the taxpayers testified to a fair market value of $2,400,000; the Board’s witness testified to an “actual market value,” of $4,000,000; and the court below found the fair market value to be $3,000,000. It then reduced this figure to an assessment of $1,320,000 by application of the common level ratio of assessed value to market value for the triennium 1963, 1964 and 1965 of 44%.

What we have said in the Massachusetts Mutual case applies here as well. The order of the court below is affirmed.

Mr. Justice EAGEN dissents.