Homeowner wins battle for review of $249,000 empty homes tax bill
The City of Vancouver has agreed to take another look at a Point Grey homeowner’s claim for exemption from a $249,000 empty homes tax bill.
A B.C. Supreme Court judge quashed a decision by the city’s vacancy tax review panel and determination by the vacancy tax review officer, according to reasons for judgment filed Dec. 24, 2019. The issue of whether the property is subject to the vacancy tax for 2017 has now been sent back to the vacancy tax review officer for determination.
This year, Yi Ju He filed a petition in B.C. Supreme Court that said she bought the home at 4749 Belmont Ave. in October 2015 and in February 2018 filed a property status declaration for the year 2017 claiming an exemption from the City of Vancouver’s vacancy tax. The tax bill for the home, which had a taxable value at the time of $24.9 million, came to $249,000.
She was getting the aging home rebuilt and therefore qualified for the exemption that applies to residential property unoccupied for more than six months for development purposes, she said in the petition.
In January 2017, He got an environmental analysis done on the home which deemed it uninhabitable due to potential asbestos concerns, a lawsuit stated.
She filed a complaint when her exemption was first denied by a vacancy tax review officer, who found that there was “inappropriate evidence” provided for her claim.
“The city determines that the reason the property was unoccupied for more than 180 days was not because it was undergoing redevelopment … with permits issued by the city,” said the review officer.
An appeal was then filed to the city’s vacancy tax review panel. But He said she was not given a chance to make oral arguments before the panel. In April, 2018, the panel informed her that it had concluded its review and found that the evidence did not bring her submission within the bylaw requirements.
Following the judge’s orders last week, the review officer will now need to determine how the new determination is undertaken, after receiving submissions from He and the City of Vancouver. The judge ordered that there be no costs to either party.
“The city acknowledges that the [vacancy tax review officer] and review panel’s decision did not meet the requirements of procedural fairness,” the judge wrote.
“Issues include the sufficiency of the [vacancy tax review officer]’s reasons for her decision and the [vacancy tax review officer] and review panel’s consideration of evidence of which Ms. He was not aware. Accordingly, the city agrees that this court should quash the [vacancy tax review officer] and the review panel’s decisions and remit the matter back to the [vacancy tax review officer] for further determination.”
The applicable bylaw says that exemptions can be allowed for developments for which permits have been issued by the city and which in the opinion of the city’s chief building official are being carried out diligently and without unnecessary delay.
In her June petition, He said that she or others on her behalf applied for development permits for the property in April 2017 and the city issued them in 2019.
“The fact that the city did not issue building permits until 2019 when the petitioner or others on her behalf applied for them in 2017 was not because of any action or inaction by the petitioner or others acting on her behalf,” said her petition. “At no time has the chief building official expressed the view that the property’s redevelopment was carried out other than diligently and without unnecessary delay.”