Evidence for an Arizona Assessment Appeal

Arizona does not simply ask you to disagree with a value. The statute requires the petition to state your opinion of the full cash value and the information that justifies it, expressed through a recognized valuation method. This page sets out what each method requires, and the two facts about Arizona evidence that decide most petitions.

Fact one: the full cash value has no cap, so you carry the burden

Arizona limits the limited property value, not the full cash value. There is no ceiling on how far the market value estimate may move, which means a petition cannot succeed by pointing at the size of the increase. The owner has to show that the value is above the actual market value — a county assessor states it bluntly: because there is no restriction on an increase in the full cash value, the owner is required to document why the assessment or valuation is incorrect. This is a different starting position from Texas, where a capped homestead can raise the size of the increase as a screening point, or from Florida, where the Save Our Homes limitation is itself part of the case.

Fact two: the valuation date limits your evidence

Property is valued as of January 1 of the valuation year, and the assessor works from sales up to that date — in practice a study spanning roughly the prior eighteen months. Sales that close after the valuation date say very little about a value set as of it, and the same is true of a market that turned afterwards. If your argument is that the market has since fallen, the evidence that matters is the evidence available for the valuation date itself.

What the petition must state, by method

Market approach

The statute names this method with a specific requirement: it includes the full cash value of at least one comparable property in the same geographic area, or the sale of the subject property. Two practical consequences follow from that wording:

• “Same geographic area” is part of the standard. A comparable from another part of the county, or from a different market segment, is weaker evidence than the statute asks for. Assessors divide their counties into market areas precisely because location drives value.
• You must state a value for the comparable. A list of addresses with sale prices is not the same as the comparable’s full cash value as the assessor records it. Using the assessor’s own published records for that property gives you both the number and the source.

Income approach

Available where the property produces income, and it carries an additional information requirement in § 42-16052 — the statute expects the income, expense and capitalisation inputs, not a bottom-line opinion.

Cost approach

The cost to build or rebuild the property plus the land value. This is the method that most often exposes a factual error in the record: overstated living area, improvements that no longer exist, or a condition problem that the valuation has not reflected.

The evidence that is specific to Arizona: class and use

Because the ratio applied to your property depends on its legal class, and because the limited property value can be re-established when the physical use changes, evidence about class and use is often worth more than evidence about the market:

• Class three is the owner’s primary residence. The statute defines class three as residential property occupied by the owner as the owner’s primary residence (it also covers a residence occupied by a relative, and an owner-occupied home with lodgers), and class four as the residential class that catches what the others do not — including property solely leased or rented. A second or vacation home therefore belongs in class four, which is where county assessors place it following the 2012 change. Both classes are assessed at 10%, but class three receives a state aid to education reduction on the bill that class four does not, so a classification error has a direct monetary effect. To move a property to owner-occupied class three, the owner files an application for reclassification with the assessor.
• A change in occupant is not a change in use. The statute says so directly: a change in the occupant or in the classification of a single-family residence is not a change in use in itself. If a re-established limited value is attributed to a change of use that was really only a change of owner or tenant, that is a factual point the petition can make.
• Construction has a numeric threshold. A modification by construction, destruction or demolition re-establishes the limited value only when the total value of the modification is equal to or greater than 15% of the full cash value. A project below that threshold does not, and the arithmetic is a fact you can check against the notice.

How to assemble the evidence

1. Start with the notice and the assessor’s record. Full cash value, limited property value, legal class, and the property characteristics the assessor used. Errors here are the most common and most fixable problem.
2. Select comparables inside the same geographic area and confirm their full cash values in the assessor’s records, not only their sale prices.
3. Fix the valuation date. Keep sales that closed on or before January 1 of the valuation year; treat anything after it as background rather than proof.
4. State your own opinion of the full cash value, and say which method produced it. The petition requires a number and a method, not a narrative.
5. Use the right form. Class three uses its own form with simplified instructions; a letter does not substitute for the required form, and the Board of Equalization will not accept one.

Worked example (illustrative)

Illustrative preparation only, not a prediction of any outcome.

1. Claim: the assessor values the property at a full cash value of $400,000; the owner believes it is $360,000.
2. Method stated: market approach. The owner identifies two homes in the same market area with full cash values of $355,000 and $365,000, plus a closed sale of the subject property from before the valuation date.
3. Record check: the owner notices the assessor’s record shows 2,400 square feet against a measured 2,150, which explains part of the gap. That correction is presented as a factual error.
4. Expectation set correctly: the owner also checks that the limited property value is at the full cash value before assuming a reduction will change the bill. Where the limited value sits well below it, the appeal may correct the record without changing the tax base.

What this tells you: in Arizona, the strongest petitions combine a small number of genuinely comparable properties with a correction of something factual in the record.

What it does not tell you: how the assessor or a board will weigh your comparables, what weight the adjustments between homes carry, or whether the classification argument changes the bill.

Where to go next

• The petition for review — the forms, the 60-day window and the appeal ladder.
• Full cash value vs limited property value — the 15% construction threshold and the other re-establishment rules.
• How comparable properties work — a general guide to selecting and presenting comparables.