In 2008, the State Supreme Court ruled in favor of an aggressive tax strategy by the company, in a case known as Walgreens v. City of Madison. When calculating the property taxes it owed, Walgreens used an artificially low valuation of its stores. It did not pay taxes based on the actual value of those stores, as reflected by their purchase price and rent. Instead, it took into account the value of vacant stores nearby.
First of all, I have never heard of a state that allows property owners to set their own property values, and thus their taxes. What's stopping them from setting it to zero?
Second, if there are vacant storefronts
in comparable condition to the local Walgreens, then it is only logical that, if Walgreens were to sell, it could probably only get an amount comparable to those that are still vacant. In other words, the "actual value" resale-wise is probably pretty darn close to those vacant storefronts. That's how supply and demand works.
But then again, I do not expect a generation that believes the notion that "you don't lose value just because others can't see your worth" to understand this concept.
