In Downingtown Area School District v. Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that reverse appeals by taxing authorities are constitutional where the decision to appeal is grounded in a written policy based on economic measures.

Background
In 2012, the Downingtown Area School District (the “District”) implemented a written policy governing the filing of tax assessment appeals, providing authority to pursue appeals only when doing so anticipated a minimum tax revenue generation of $10,000, regardless of property type.

For the 2020 tax year, the District retained a third-party consultant to identify underassessed properties meeting this threshold within the District. The consultant identified a list of properties for consideration, and the District chose fifteen of those properties to appeal. Following the selection of the fifteen properties, the District learned Marchwood Apartments recently sold for a price that suggested substantial underassessment and added it to the list of properties to appeal.

The District appealed all sixteen assessments to the Chester County Board of Assessment Appeals (the “Board”), and the Board denied the appeal of Marchwood Apartments, so the District further appealed that decision. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court concluded that although the use of such a monetary threshold may be permissible, the District applied its policy in an arbitrary and non-uniform manner, including, amongst other reasons, by not appealing all the properties that met the threshold.

Decision
On May 19, 2026, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the decision, holding that a taxing authority’s use of a monetary threshold to select properties for assessment appeals is constitutional. The Court further concluded that the District’s application of its policy in this case was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.

The Court determined that a neutral “economic” policy selecting properties based on the potential tax revenue generated, rather than property type, use, or ownership characteristics, is permissible. The Court reasoned that such a threshold is consistent with the goal of tax uniformity as it focuses on properties that are most significantly underassessed.

The Court also rejected the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion that the District’s applicationof its policy was unconstitutional. The Court found that the District’s decision to pursue appeals for only some properties over the threshold was not discriminatory, but rather a prudent financial decision in selecting the most substantially underassessed properties.  

What This Means
Taxing authorities may feel more comfortable bringing reverse appeals as a result of this decision. At the same time, property owners should be aware that assessment appeals may become more data-driven and focused on potential revenue thresholds, particularly following recent sales or valuation changes. Both taxing authorities and taxpayers may benefit from ensuring their assessment positions are well-supported and regularly reviewed.

If you have questions about this decision or how it may affect your property assessments, please contact attorneys Katelyn Rohrbaugh Lewis, Justin Tomevi or any member in Barley Snyder’s Real Estate or Litigation practice groups.

—

Summer Associate Michael Agadis assisted in the drafting of this news alert.