VALDOSTA — A Georgia Supreme Court decision handed down Monday against Lowndes County tax officials could have an effect on the state’s affordable housing market, according to an attorney involved in the case.

In the case of Heron Lake II Apartments, LP, et al v. Lowndes County Board of Tax Assessors, the high court reversed a lower court ruling involving low income housing tax credits and how they should be valued in the calculation of property tax values, court documents show.

The appellants were eight partnerships which built apartment complexes in Lowndes County.

The state Supreme Court ruled Monday that the tax credits do not represent “actual income.” That means tax assessors will have to appraise affordable housing properties with the “income approach,” said Thompson Kurrie Jr., a lawyer with the firm of Coleman/Talley who represented the appellants.

The income approach involves determining tax value based on the income the property generates.

The high court also ruled that certain sections of state law the Board of Assessors had claimed were unconstitutional did not, in fact, conflict with the state’s constitution, according to court documents. The sections in question dealt with “taxation uniformity,” which requires all properties of the same class to be taxed in the same manner.

“If the high court had not overturned the lower court’s ruling, affordable housing in Georgia would become unaffordable due to rising ad valorem taxes,” he said. “The rent generated by (rent-controlled property) is relatively low.”

Kurrie said he had been dealing with the central issues involved for more than a decade, starting with the case of Pine Pointe Housing v. The Lowndes County Board of Tax Assessors, which stretches back to 2002.

In a statement, Lowndes County Chief Tax Assessor Silas Hrobar said, “The Board of Assessors brought its case for declaratory judgment to obtain guidance from the courts regarding how Section 42 tax credits may be considered in valuing Section 42 properties.

“The Board of Assessors appreciates the Supreme Court’s ruling that Section 42 tax credits are properly considered as an unusual circumstance and also under the cost approach to valuation. In addition, the Court restated its prior ruling that Section 42 tax credits affect the amount a knowledgeable buyer would pay and a willing seller would accept in a sale and confirmed that any appraisal shall conform to this definition of fair market value.”

Terry Richards is senior reporter at The Valdosta Daily Times.