194.301
Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
194.301 Challenge to ad valorem tax assessment.—
(1) In any administrative or judicial action in which a taxpayer challenges an ad valorem tax assessment of value, the property appraiser’s assessment is presumed correct if the appraiser proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessment was arrived at by complying with s. 193.011, any other applicable statutory requirements relating to classified use values or assessment caps, and professionally accepted appraisal practices, including mass appraisal standards, if appropriate. However, a taxpayer who challenges an assessment is entitled to a determination by the value adjustment board or court of the appropriateness of the appraisal methodology used in making the assessment. The value of property must be determined by an appraisal methodology that complies with the criteria of s. 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. The provisions of this subsection preempt any prior case law that is inconsistent with this subsection.
(2) In an administrative or judicial action in which an ad valorem tax assessment is challenged, the burden of proof is on the party initiating the challenge.
(a) If the challenge is to the assessed value of the property, the party initiating the challenge has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessed value:
1. Does not represent the just value of the property after taking into account any applicable limits on annual increases in the value of the property;
2. Does not represent the classified use value or fractional value of the property if the property is required to be assessed based on its character or use; or
3. Is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the property appraiser to comparable property within the same county.
(b) If the party challenging the assessment satisfies the requirements of paragraph (a), the presumption provided in subsection (1) is overcome, and the value adjustment board or the court shall establish the assessment if there is competent, substantial evidence of value in the record which cumulatively meets the criteria of s. 193.011 and professionally accepted appraisal practices. If the record lacks such evidence, the matter must be remanded to the property appraiser with appropriate directions from the value adjustment board or the court, and the property appraiser must comply with those directions.
(c) If the revised assessment following remand is challenged, the procedures described in this section apply.
(d) If the challenge is to the classification or exemption status of the property, there is no presumption of correctness, and the party initiating the challenge has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the classification or exempt status assigned to the property is incorrect.
History.—s. 1, ch. 97-85; s. 1, ch. 2009-121.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case: Mazourek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Mazourek v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2002)
“The property appraiser's assessment is presumed correct, but such presumption is lost where the taxpayer demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that the property appraiser "has failed to consider properly" the section 193.”
In Re Tax Assessment of Foster Foundation's Woodlands Retirement Community (2009)
“" (emphasis added) (citing Fla. Stat. § 194.301 (1997))); Frank v. Assessors of Skowhegan, 329 A.”
Smith v. Royal & Sons, Ltd. (2001)
“Therefore, Appraiser comes into this trial without the presumption of correctness under Section 194.301, Florida Statutes regarding any proposed assessments.”
Sowell v. State (2014)
“See § 194.301(2)(a). Section 194.036(l)(c) provides that a property appraiser may file with the Florida Department of Revenue (“DOR”) an “assertion” that the VAB has committed a “consistent and continuous” violation of the law in certain of its decisions.”
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Todora (2001)
“Wal-Mart has not established that the property appraiser failed to consider properly the criteria of section 193.”
GTE Florida, Inc. v. Todora (2003)
“Section 194.301, Florida Statutes (1999), provides that if in a judicial proceeding the property appraiser's assessment "is determined to be erroneous," the court can establish the assessment if the record contains competent, substantial evidence that cumulatively meets the…”
Turner v. Bell Chevrolet, Inc. (2002)
“See § 194.301, Fla. Stat. (2000) (providing that an assessment is entitled to a presumption of correctness; however, that presumption is lost if the taxpayer proves that the assessment is based on practices not applied to comparable property).”
CVS EGL Fruitville Sarasota FL, LLC v. Todora (2013)
“Section 194.301, Florida Statutes (2005), 1 provides the framework for the resolution of ad valorem tax challenges in Florida.”
Jones v. Portofino Tower One Homeowners Ass'n (2012)
“We affirm with respect to the second and third issues because the trial court properly determined that the property appraiser’s assessments exceeded just value and because competent, substantial evidence in the record supports the trial court’s establishment of the assessments.”
Steffen v. Turner (In Re Steffen) (2006)
“§ 194.301, Fla. Stat. (2005) A property appraiser is merely required to consider all of the statutory criteria, and has the discretion to discard any specific factors that are not indicative of just value under the circumstances.”
Edward A. Crapo, in his capacity as Alachua County Property Appraiser v. Academy for Five Element Acupuncture, Inc., a F (2019)
“§ 194.301(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (“If the challenge is to the classification or exemption status of the property, there is no presumption of correctness, and the party initiating the challenge has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the classification or…”
Mercado v. Florida Department of Revenue (2026)
“; § 194.301(2)(a), Fla. Stat. “Absent clear direction from the Legislature, we find no reason to deviate from that standard here.”
— 194.301(2)(a) — 2 cases
Sowell v. State (2014)
“See § 194.301(2)(a). Section 194.036(l)(c) provides that a property appraiser may file with the Florida Department of Revenue (“DOR”) an “assertion” that the VAB has committed a “consistent and continuous” violation of the law in certain of its decisions.”
Mercado v. Florida Department of Revenue (2026)
“; § 194.301(2)(a), Fla. Stat. “Absent clear direction from the Legislature, we find no reason to deviate from that standard here.”
— 194.301(2)(d) — 1 case
Edward A. Crapo, in his capacity as Alachua County Property Appraiser v. Academy for Five Element Acupuncture, Inc., a F (2019)
“§ 194.301(2)(d), Fla. Stat. (“If the challenge is to the classification or exemption status of the property, there is no presumption of correctness, and the party initiating the challenge has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the classification or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.