K.S.A. » Chapter 79
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 79-503a (2026)

Fair market value defined; allowable variance; factors to be considered in determining fair market value; generally accepted appraisal procedures and standards to be utilized; exclusion of federal internal revenue code section 1031 exchange transactions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

79-503a. Fair market value defined; allowable variance; factors to be considered in determining fair market value; generally accepted appraisal procedures and standards to be utilized; exclusion of federal internal revenue code section 1031 exchange transactions. "Fair market value" means the amount in terms of money that a well informed buyer is justified in paying and a well informed seller is justified in accepting for property in an open and competitive market, assuming that the parties are acting without undue compulsion. In the determination of fair market value of any real property which is subject to any special assessment, such value shall not be determined by adding the present value of the special assessment to the sales price. For the purposes of this definition it will be assumed that consummation of a sale occurs as of January 1.

Sales in and of themselves shall not be the sole criteria of fair market value but shall be used in connection with cost, income and other factors including but not by way of exclusion:

(a) The proper classification of lands and improvements;

(b) the size thereof;

(c) the effect of location on value;

(d) depreciation, including physical deterioration or functional, economic or social obsolescence;

(e) cost of reproduction of improvements;

(f) productivity taking into account all restrictions imposed by the state or federal government and local governing bodies, including, but not limited to, restrictions on property rented or leased to low income individuals and families as authorized by section 42 of the federal internal revenue code of 1986, as amended;

(g) earning capacity as indicated by lease price, by capitalization of net income or by absorption or sell-out period;

(h) rental or reasonable rental values or rental values restricted by the state or federal government or local governing bodies, including, but not limited to, restrictions on property rented or leased to low income individuals and families, as authorized by section 42 of the federal internal revenue code of 1986, as amended;

(i) sale value on open market with due allowance to abnormal inflationary factors influencing such values;

(j) restrictions or requirements imposed upon the use of real estate by the state or federal government or local governing bodies, including zoning and planning boards or commissions, and including, but not limited to, restrictions or requirements imposed upon the use of real estate rented or leased to low income individuals and families, as authorized by section 42 of the federal internal revenue code of 1986, as amended; and

(k) comparison with values of other property of known or recognized value. The assessment-sales ratio study shall not be used as an appraisal for appraisal purposes.

The appraisal process utilized in the valuation of all real and tangible personal property for ad valorem tax purposes shall conform to generally accepted appraisal procedures and standards which are consistent with the definition of fair market value unless otherwise specified by law.

The sale price or value at which a property sells or transfers ownership in a federal internal revenue code section 1031 exchange shall not be considered an indicator of fair market value nor as a factor in arriving at fair market value. Federal internal revenue code section 1031 exchange transactions shall not be used as comparable sales for valuation purposes nor as valid sales for purposes of sales ratio studies conducted pursuant to K.S.A. 79-1485 et seq., and amendments thereto.

History: L. 1982, ch. 391, § 2; L. 1990, ch. 346, § 3; L. 1995, ch. 254, § 5; L. 1997, ch. 126, § 42; L. 2003, ch. 156, § 4; L. 2009, ch. 97, § 3; L. 2016, ch. 112, § 9; L. 2024, ch. 1, § 10 (Special Session); June 27.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (12 in the last 5 years), 1987–2026 · leading case: Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Comm'rs v. Jordan, 370 P.3d 1170 (Kan. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Comm'rs v. Jordan, 370 P.3d 1170 (Kan. 2016). · cites it 11× “See K.S.A. 2014 Supp. 79-503a. The dispute presented arises because the legislature made a unique exception to the process of valuing taxable real property.”
In Re the Equalization Appeal of Tallgrass Prairie Holdings, LLC, 333 P.3d 899 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 13× “*641 Here, COTA determined Meyer provided “credible testimony” regarding the characteristics and investment class of the Property and confirmed the County considered all factors listed in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 79-503a in arriving at its valuation.”
In re Tax Appeal of River Rock Energy Co., 492 P.3d 1157 (Kan. 2021). · cites it 7× “79-1439(a) specifies that personal property subject to general ad valorem taxation must be appraised uniformly and equally at its fair market value as defined in K.S.A. 79-503a. 4. Under K.S.A. 79-503a, the appraisal process used in the valuation of all tangible personal…”
In re the Equalization Appeal of Johnson Cnty. Appraiser/Privitera Realty Holdings, 283 P.3d 823 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 7× “Regardless, Clark understood that under K.S.A. 2011 Supp. 79-503a, she was required to consider sales of comparable properties to determine the validity of the County’s assessment of the KenTacoHut.”
Wagner v. State, 265 P.3d 577 (Kan. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13× “Despite that, Wagner also made a claim for declaratoiy relief against the State, arguing that the State erred in interpreting K.S.A. 79-503a to allow the use of listing price in determining fair market value for real property.”
In Re the Equalization Proceeding of the Amoco Prod. Co., 102 P.3d 1176 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 6× “Cooper’s work failed to follow the statutory definition of fair market value found in K.S.A. 79-503a. 4. The County gave BOTA incorrect information about the future availability of gas supplies.”
Bd. of Douglas Cnty. Comm'rs v. Cashatt, 933 P.2d 167 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 10× “The legislature *542 stated that sales in and of themselves, shall not be the sole criteria of fair market value but shall be used in connection with cost, income, and other factors including, but not by way of exclusion: “(a) The proper classification of lands and improvements;…”
In re Equalization of Target Corp., 410 P.3d 939 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “In pertinent part, K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 79-503a states: " 'Fair market value' means the amount in terms of money that a well informed buyer is justified in paying and a well informed seller is justified in accepting for property in an open and competitive market, assuming that the…”
Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Comm'rs v. Greenhaw, 734 P.2d 1125 (Kan. 1987). · cites it 4× “It contends that BOTA ignored the earning capacity as indicated by the lease price or by capitalization of net income and the rental or reasonable value of net income, that both BOTA and the district court failed to recognize that subsections (f) and (g) of K.S.A. 79-503a…”
In re Equalization Appeal of Walmart Stores, Inc., 513 P.3d 457 (Kan. 2022). · cites it 5× “See K.S.A. 79-503a. It does this by declaring "build-to-suit lease rental rates are not probative of market conditions.”
In Re Equalization Appeal of Ottawa Hous. Ass'n, Lp, 10 P.3d 777 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “On appeal, Ottawa Housing limited its arguments to the interpretation and application of K.S.A. 79-503a, arguing that BOTA should have considered the governmental restrictions that accompany its status as a low-income housing complex.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Bankoff Oil Co., 960 P.2d 1279 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 4× “Fair market value is defined by K.S.A. 79-503a as *539 “the amount in terms of money that a well informed buyer is justified in paying and a well informed seller is justified in accepting for property in an open and competitive market, assuming that the parties are acting…”
Show all 52 citing cases →
— K.S.A. § 79-503a(a) — 1 case
In re Equalization of Ruffin Woodlands (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 79-503a(b) — 2 cases
In re Equalization of Target Corp., 410 P.3d 939 (Kan. Ct. App. 2017). “In pertinent part, K.S.A. 2016 Supp. 79-503a states: " 'Fair market value' means the amount in terms of money that a well informed buyer is justified in paying and a well informed seller is justified in accepting for property in an open and competitive market, assuming that the…”
In re Equalization of Ruffin Woodlands (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 79-503a(d) — 2 cases
In Re Equalization Appeal of Ottawa Hous. Ass'n, Lp, 10 P.3d 777 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). “On appeal, Ottawa Housing limited its arguments to the interpretation and application of K.S.A. 79-503a, arguing that BOTA should have considered the governmental restrictions that accompany its status as a low-income housing complex.”
In re Equalization of Ruffin Woodlands (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 79-503a(e) — 1 case
In re Equalization of Ruffin Woodlands (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 79-503a(f) — 2 cases
In re Tax Appeal of City of Council Grove (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
In re Equalization Appeal of City of Council Grove (Kan. Ct. App. 2026).
— K.S.A. § 79-503a(g) — 4 cases
In Re the Equalization Appeal of Tallgrass Prairie Holdings, LLC, 333 P.3d 899 (Kan. Ct. App. 2014). “*641 Here, COTA determined Meyer provided “credible testimony” regarding the characteristics and investment class of the Property and confirmed the County considered all factors listed in K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 79-503a in arriving at its valuation.”
In re Equalization Appeal of Walmart Stores, Inc., 513 P.3d 457 (Kan. 2022). “See K.S.A. 79-503a. It does this by declaring "build-to-suit lease rental rates are not probative of market conditions.”
In re Equalization of Ruffin Woodlands (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
In re Tax Appeal of Arciterra BP (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
— K.S.A. § 79-503a(h) — 1 case
In re Tax Appeal of City of Council Grove (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 79-503a(i) — 1 case
In re Equalization of Ruffin Woodlands (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
— K.S.A. § 79-503a(j) — 4 cases
Bd. of Douglas Cnty. Comm'rs v. Cashatt, 933 P.2d 167 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997). “The legislature *542 stated that sales in and of themselves, shall not be the sole criteria of fair market value but shall be used in connection with cost, income, and other factors including, but not by way of exclusion: “(a) The proper classification of lands and improvements;…”
In re Equalization Appeals of Kansas Star Casino (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
In re Equalization Appeal of Kansas Star Casino (Kan. Ct. App. 2021).
In re Equalization Appeal of Kansas Star Casino (Kan. Ct. App. 2022).
— K.S.A. § 79-503a(k) — 3 cases
In Re the Equalization Appeal of Kansas Star Casino, L.L.C., 362 P.3d 1109 (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
In re Equalization of Ruffin Woodlands (Kan. Ct. App. 2020).
In re Equalization Appeal of Kansas Star Casino ( (Kan. Ct. App. 2015).
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.