Yellow Cab oI Winchester

427 North Cameron Street Winchester VA 22601

(540)678-8294(TAXI)
May 12, 2012
Mr. Michael S. Melson
Director, Appeals and Ruling
Virginia Department oI Taxation
600 East Main Street
Richmond Virginia 23219
Re: Final Local Determination
Locality Assessing Tax: City oI Winchester
Taxpayer: Exectrans and Courier Service dba Yellow Cab oI Winchester
Business Tangible Personal Property Tax
Date oI Tax Commissioner Final Determination Letter: April 27, 2012
LETTER FOR RECONCIDERATION OF STATE TAX COMMISSIONER
FINAL DETERMINATION APRIL 27, 2012
Dear Mr. Melson,
I appreciate your department's time in reviewing the local appeal and State Tax Commissioner appeal regarding the
assessment oI Business Personal Property Tax('BPPT) Ior Yellow Cab oI Winchester('appellant). We received the Iinal
determination letter via email on May 3, 2012 via email Irom Carol Donaldson per our request.
I thoroughly reviewed the Final Determination oI the Appeals and Ruling Department and respectIully am requesting a
'Reconsideration oI the Iinal determination previously submitted. !"#$%&'(!'(&)*+,$-./0/12342/56,4776481+
VA Administrative Code Citation
~Authority
The Virginia Administrative Code grants the taxpayer a request Ior reconsideration oI the Iinal determination letter. F(1)
states that the letter must be Iiled within 45 days oI the determination and that the taxpayer must demonstrate 'one oI the
Iollowing:
A. The Iacts upon which the Tax Commissioner relied upon to make the Iinal determination were misstated by the
Tax Commissioner or were inaccurate and that the determination would have a diIIerent result based on the
correction oI the Tax Commissioner's misstatements presented Ior or a clariIication oI the original Iacts
presented in the taxpayer's administrative appeal.
B The law upon which the original determination is based has been changed by legislation, court decision or
other authority eIIective Ior tax period(s) at issue;

C. The policy upon which the original determination is based is misapplied, and the determination would have a
diIIerent result based on the application oI the proper policy; or
D. The taxpayer has discovered additional evidence or documentation that was not available to the taxpayer at the
time the original administrative appeal was Iiled with the department, and the additional evidence or
documentation could produce a result diIIerent Irom the original determination.
Per the Virginia Administrative Code 23VAC10-20-165, F(1), a copy of the complete appeal is being attached to this
Letter of Reconsideration. All appropriate documentation is listed in an ordered appendix which will be reIerred to in
order to support the 'appellant's position. Some oI the documentation provided will be sample's oI original documentation
which is presumed to be acceptable per 23VAC10-20-165 section F.
For the purpose oI this Reconsideration Letter, Evidence related to A, C and D will be cited and considered as
documentation which is substantial evidence or 'prooI oI the validity oI this Letter Ior Reconsideration .
FACTUALLY INCORRECT STATEMENTS MADE IN DETERMINATION LETTER
BY STATE TAX COMMISSIONER
Authority: Subsection A.
Statement #1: You appeal the Business Tangible Personal Property(BTPP) tax assessment issued by the City oI
Winchester(the 'City) Ior the 2008 through 2010 tax years.
Correction: The appealed tax years are 2009-2011(exhibit #7)
Authority: Subsection A.
Statement #2: The City determined that the Taxpayer under-reported the value oI its taxicabs Ior business tangible
personal property tax purposes and issued assessments Ior the tax years at issue.
Correction: The taxpayer did not perIorm a selI assessment as the City Assessment Methodology includes an automated
process that assigns values to the Taxicabs when the 'vehicle inIormation is transmitted Irom the DMV to the
commissioner oI revenue's oIIice per 'audio taped conversation. ThereIore, the taxpayer did not under-report the values oI
its taxicabs. The taxpayer appealed the preemtive over-valuations914.786,6:;/</2,=>? which automatically applied to
taxpayer's taxicabs or were manually applied by the commissioner's oIIice.(exhibit #7)
Authority: Subsection A.
Statement #3: The Taxpayer argues that the City improperly relied on a pricing guide to determine Iair market value oI the
Taxicabs. It asserts that VA Code 58.1-3503(A) excludes taxicabs Irom the requirement that motor vehicles be valued using
a recognized pricing guide.
Correction: Though the use oI NADA to determine the FMV oI Taxicabs is erroneous because NADA does not account Ior
'branding oI vehicles which drastically reduces the FMV oI such vehicles, Statement #3 is Iactually incorrect on its Iace.
(exhibit #1,#2)
The taxpayer argues that 58.1-3503A (3) not 58.1-3503A, speciIically 'excludes the category 'Taxicab Irom being
valuated or 'grouped with 'Automobiles(category #3) not motor vehicles as is stated in Statement #3. SpeciIically, there
are '10' categories that qualiIy as 'motor vehicles including: Farm Machinery(2), Automobiles(3), Trucks(4), Trucks and
other vehicles(5), Antique motor vehicles(7), Taxicabs(8), Handicapped vehicles(9), motorcycles(10), Boats under
5tons(11), Boats 5tons or more(12), and AircraIts(13). (exhibit #7)
For the purpose oI this correction or misstatement, Taxicabs are not classiIied as Automobiles according to 58.1-3503(A3)
and (A8). The Tax Commissioner misapplied the 'term' motor vehicle to Taxicabs Ior the purpose oI classiIication within
the categories.(Paragraph # / exhibit #9)
Authority: Subsection A, C and D.
Statement #4: The Taxpayer Iurther contends that the City Iailed to take into consideration, the alterations that transIorm a
stock automobile into a taxicab and the condition oI the Taxpayer's cabs.
Correction:
The Taxpayer did not make the above contention as a primary argument. The central theme oI the contention is
'BRANDING which is mutually exclusive oI the condition 'per se. Though, we may have added additional inIormation
that explained some oI the reasoning behind 'BRANDING - The process oI 'BRANDING a vehicle is administrative and
not based on the physical condition oI the Taxicab. The DMV 'BRANDS Taxicabs as soon as they are registered and
plates are issued. (exhibit #1, #2, #3, #6)
Authority: Subsection A, C and Subsection D.
Statement #5: The City relies on a recognized pricing guide to ascertain the value oI Taxicabs within its jurisdiction and
then allows adjustments based on evidence oI their physical condition as provided by the taxicab owners. The city applies
this method uniIormly among taxicab companies within its jurisdiction.
Correction:
This statement is unlawIul relative to 58.1-3503(B) in terms where 'adjustments based on evidence oI their 'physical
condition as provided by the taxicab owner. Part (B) states in part:
'A commissioner oI revenue shall upon request take into account the condition oI the property. The term
'condition oI the property includes, but is not limited to, technological obsolescence oI property where the
technological obsolescence is an appropriate Iactor Ior valuing such property.(exhibit #7)
There is not a requirement to produce evidence oI physical condition in 58.1-3503B. 'BRANDING is an administrative
condition that detracts Irom the FMV oI TAXICABS per new evidence(exibit 8-9) which was not considered prior.
(exhibit =6)
NADA Guides are not assessment tools Ior 'any BRANDED vehicles(exibit 8-9) per Executive Analysts Ior
NADA.(exhibit =1, =2)
CARFAX is A GUIDE FOR potential buyers to determine BRANDING and subsequently, accurately reduce the FMV oI
such vehicle which has been administratively 'BRANDED' by the DMV. (exhibit #3)
Authority: Subsection A and D.
Statement #6: ~Accordingly, the city's assessment is correct pending an examination oI documentation in order to allow
adjustments based on the physical condition oI the taxicabs.
Statement #7: 'I am, thereIore, remanding this case back to the City in order to consider any other evidence that Taxpayer
may be able to provide with regards to the ~physical condition oI its taxicabs.
Correction:
Based on Statement #5 above, remanding the case back Ior Iurther evidence regarding physical condition is not supported
by 58.1-3503(B) where it does not require the taxpayer to provide evidence oI physical condition; It just states 'condition oI
the property where the 'BRANDING is an administrative condition placed on the Automobile. All evidence oI the
'administrative branding should be considered 'prima Iascia as it is assumed that all taxicabs are properly licensed and
registered to operate on the roadways in the Commonwealth oI Va. Furthermore, copies oI all titles have been deposited
with the commissioner(paragraph =3, exhibit =7) and she is aware oI the Taxicab 'plate numbers which Iurther sets Iorth
the administrative 'BRANDING. Yellow Cab oI Winchester is compliant with the requirements oI being a taxicab
company and possesses the credentialing that allows its Taxicabs to lawIully pickup and dropoII passengers in the city oI
Winchester and throughout the Commonwealth oI VA. (Ja State Code 58.1-3503(B))
CONCLUSION
In Conclusion, two issues still remain that the Tax Commissioner has either mis-stated or inadvertantly misapplied to the
Iacts oI the taxpayer's appeal regarding issues oI materiality.
METHODOLOGY
Evidence oI a Taxicab Methodology has never been produced into this appeal Iile. A Business Tax Personal Property
Methodology was included(exhibit #4) but in no such terms was the classiIication 'taxicab addressed and a methodology
produced. The commissioner states that she has given Yellow Cab oI Winchester('YCW) her taxicab methodology but in
Iact, there is no evidence that supports that the document that she has submitted is in Iact a Taxicab Methodology per 58.1-
3503(B). Exhibit #4, which is the commissioner's 'automobile methodology according to 58.1-3503(A3) and since the
commissioner is barred Irom applying that methodology to the classiIication 'Taxicab (8) - We thereIore ask the Tax
Commissioner to require the local commissioner to adhere to 58.1-3503(B) where it states in part that 'the tax
commissioner, upon request by a taxpayer, will provide a reasonable description oI his valuation methods.(exhibit =7)
The commissioner's description that she has provided does not pass the reasonableness test cited in the commissioner's
determination letter(exhibit #9) because the document/methodology does not label or describe the speciIic valuation method
Ior 'Taxicabs' where the methods have been leIt blank(exhibit #10) by the general assembly Ior the presumed purpose oI
each local commissioner constructing their own.
There is no reason to believe that the valuation methodology Ior Taxicabs is but the valuation methodology Ior
'Automobiles because Ms Burkholder Iailed to provided speciIic documenation that cited 'Taxicabs; only a statement
by Ms Burkholder saying that she is compliant and that her methodology is uniIorm across the tax category oI taxicabs.
(exhibit =4, =5)
II there is no 'valid reason to believe that the 'automobile and taxicab methodologies are exclusive oI one another(by
some Iorm oI memorialized document or paragraph(within a document) that reIers to Taxicabs and its respective valuation
method then there is only one reason that can be ascertained Irom such a Tax policy.... ~that Ms Burkholder's Office
does not recognize Taxicabs as a seperate class for valuation purposes Ior the mere Iact that she has provided no
'evidence or Iactual basis to reasonably make such a claim to her Tax Policy regarding Taxicabs. RespectIully again, it is
unlawIul.
According to Ms Burkholder's methodology Ior 'automobiles, it states:
'Should a vehicle 'not be shown in NADA or BLUE BOOK GUIDES, a percentage oI the owners capitalized
costs is used. (exhibit =4)
Per (exhibit #1, #2), Taxicabs are not included in NADA or BLUE BOOK GUIDES Ior the purpose oI deriving a Fair
Market Value('FMV). The commissioner utilizes the criteria Ior 58.1-3503(A3) located in (exhibit #4) which proves that
she has not provided a reasonable Taxicab Methodology and thereIore her reasoning is by deIinition - circular and can not
lead to the Fair Market Value oI a the classiIication 'Taxicab. Again, Iailing the reasonableness 'test.
With all due respect, neither does her response letter, pass the reasonableness test, nor does it suIIice the attack oI YCW's
appeal where we statutorily(58.1-3503B) rely on the commissioner to provide a speciIic documented methodology(exhibit
=7) that deIines a taxicab valuation method. The Iact is that she Iailed to produce an any evidence oI an applicable
methodology(where she is not presumed correct yet statutorily she is required to produce it for inspection) Ior the
purpose oI this appeal. On the contrary, appellant's case-Iile provides substantial evidence which supports its claims
concerning an unlawIul method and invalid valuations. Such supporting evidence includes but is not limited to:
1. Other jurisdictions methodologies in the Va.(exhibit = 10)
2. Erroneously assessed Taxicabs where the actual FMV was erased and retail FMV was input by her oIIice.(exhibit8)
3. Statements by NADA Executive Analysts stating that their assessment tool is not a suIIicient guide Ior
Administratively Branded Automobiles.(exhibit =1, =2)
4. CARFAX Documentation that Iurther supports that devalued assessments oI Branded automobiles is not supported
in NADA.(exhibit =3)
5. DMV Documentation relative to Taxicab 'BRANDING (exhibit =6)
6. VA State Code relative to the 'condition oI personal property 'NOT' physical condition 'per se. Obsolescence is
exclusive oI wear/tear or damage yet it addresses 'another condition TIME and INNOVATION. (exhibit =7)
BRANDING
Additionally, we ask the Tax Commissioner to please consider the Iact that 'BRANDING is not addressed in his
determination letter whatsoever, yet valuations surrounding 'physical condition' Ior purposes oI the determination were.
With all due respect, the 'BRANDING administratively applied to each Taxicab at the DMV level(exhibit =6) is a
condition that is mutually exclusive oI its physical attributes and solely one oI 'classiIication which appellant contends is
an alert to car-buyers and aIIects the value that they will pay or even purchase at all(exhibit =1, =2, =3). 'BRANDING'
detracts Irom the automobile's value(exhibit =1,2,3,6) where the supplemental emails Irom NADA(exhibit =1,2) and inIo
Irom CARFAX(exhibit =3) as well as the VA DMV(exhibit =6) support the contention that taxicabs shall not be valuated in
the same means as 'automobiles in 58.1-3503(A3). (exhibit =1,=2,=3, =6)
Statutorily, there is no disagreement with this construction and to believe 'prima Iacially that the local commissioner's
method is correct is unreasonable aIter the plethora oI authoritative inIormation that is attached and has been produced to
the contrary in the appeal Iile Ior this issue; successIully dispelling the presumption oI 'correct assessment. We humbly
ask you to reconsider the determination letter and remand the local commissioner's oIIice to do the Iollowing:
A. Remove the requirement Ior the taxpayer to provide 'physical evidence to the local commissioner Ior the
purpose oI 'exoneration' or re-assessment because it is not required by 58.1-3503(B).
B. Acknowledge that DMV administrative 'BRANDING(exhibit # 6) is a condition that detracts Irom the FMV
oI Taxicabs.
C. Acknowledge that NADA does not provide assessment values Ior 'Taxicabs(exhibit #1,#2) nor any other
'BRANDED' vehicle thereIore its use as a valuation tool by the commissioner is 'unreasonable .
D. Create a Taxicab Methodology that reasonably will lead to the FMV oI Taxicabs. Our suggestion is 50 oI
low loan value per other localities close to our city.(exhibit #10) to reach a FMV considering the condition
known as 'BRANDING. (exhibit #1,2,3,6)
E.. Retroactively require the local commissioner to adjust YCW BTPP paymens/bills both paid and unpaid; and
issue an adjusted amount that is reIlective oI the actual FMV oI its taxicabs per the documented Taxicab
Valuation Methodology implemented above.
Lastly, appellant is requesting a Reconsideration ConIerence with the State Tax Commissioner to Iurther Ilesh out any
issues or concerns regarding the corrections and new inIormation provided in this Reconsideration Letter and per the VA
Administrative Code. Please Iorward the date and time to the Iollowing email at randyyellowcabwinchester.com which is
the best means oI contact. II a Reconsideration ConIerence is denied, then please Iorward the contact inIormation Ior the
Appeals and Ruling representative(in the response letter) so that we may serve process on them.
It is still presumed that this appeal, per the VA Administrative Code, continues the 'Suspension oI all Collection Activity
which our local City Treasurer is violating every day and is presently 'unlawIully detaining' our equipment where the City
SheriII has violated our 4
th
Amendment Rights by conducting an 'unreasonable search and 'seizure without a valid
'Search Warrant to obtain the property that was Iraudulently placed under distress by Mark Garber, Winchester City
Treasurer. The local City SheriII Deputies Iorced their way into our building and seized our assets without proper consent
or due process.
Your attention to this sensitive matter is greatly appreciated.
Best Regards,
R.Cadmus Jr.
cc: Commissioner oI Revenue
City Treasurer
City Attorney
City Manager
City SheriII
Frank WolI
Delegate Sherwood
Senator Vogle
Governor McDonnell
Brad Pollack
Noel Sable

APPENDIX
1..................................................................................NADA EMAIL#1
2..................................................................................NADA EMAIL#2
3..................................................................................CARFAX DOC.
4..........................................................................C.O.R METHODOLOGY
5..................................................................................C.O.R RESPONSE
6..................................................................................DMV DOC RE: BRANDING
7..................................................................................INITIAL APPEAL
8...........................................................................C.O.R VEHICLE VALUATION
9............................................................................Tax Comm. Determination Ltr.
10..........................................................................YCW Response to C.O.R -resp.