Pa. Const. Art. VIII,
§ 2(b)(iii) (emphasis added).
In
McKnight Shopping Center Inc., v. Board of Property Assessment, 209 A.2d 389 (Pa. 1965) our Supreme Court explained
the application of the uniformity provisions of the Constitution to real estate taxes:
Our Constitution, Art. 9, § 1, P.S., requires all taxes to be uniform on the same class of subjects within the territorial
limits of the authority levying the tax. In applying this provision of our Constitution to the taxation of real estate, it
is clear that all real estate is the class entitled to uniform treatment and
that the ratio of assessed value to market value must be applied equally and uniformly to all real estate within the jurisdiction
of such authority.
Id.
at 392 (emphasis in original).
Thus,
properties located within the same local taxing authority territorial limits must receive uniform treatment. In other
words, the location of a property can never be the determinative factor as
to whether to apply a tax or a tax exemption.
The
principles governing the validity of tax classifications are well established in Pennsylvania. In Leonard v. Thornburgh,
489 A.2d 1349 (Pa. 1985) for example, the Supreme Court stated:
In cases where the validity of a classification for tax purposes is challenged, the test is whether the classification
is based upon some legitimate distinction between the classes that provides non-arbitrary and "reasonable and just" basis
for the difference in treatment. Stated alternatively, the focus of judicial review is upon whether there can be discerned
"some concrete justification" for treating the relevant group of tax payers as member of distinguishable classes subject to
different tax burdens. When there exists no legitimate distinctions between the classes, and, thus, the tax scheme poses
substantially unequal tax burdens upon persons otherwise similarly situated, the tax is unconstitutional.
The foregoing is from the following site...
By: Richard B. Sandow
http://www.jgcg.com/Lerta_and_Property_Development.htm