Competency (part 2 of 2)

COMPETENCY RULE or SCOPE OF WORK RULE: Which Rule Rules? (part 2 of 2)

(by William M. Novotny, AQB Certified USPAP Instructor. This is the second part of a two-part article focusing on the generalist appraiser and the issue of competency. For Part One, go here.)

This article builds upon the competency issues developed and discussed in Part One, and it explores those issues further by means of two hypothetical appraisal assignments performed by John Morgan, a hypothetical, experienced generalist personal property appraiser. In these two mini-case studies John must deal with critical competency issues for an insurance total loss appraisal assignment and for a separate equitable distribution appraisal assignment.

Hypothetical Insurance Assignment: A Competency Disclosure or a Scope of Work Disclosure?

In this hypothetical insurance assignment fictional appraiser John Morgan was contacted by Rachel Barnes, a senior insurance adjuster, to appraise some items of personal property involved in a fire loss claim.

The insured in this case owns specialized items of personal property including some antique furniture, decorative art, a Japanese folding screen (Byobu) and a very large HO brass scale model train collection with an extensive tabletop model train layout. John Morgan is asked to appraise the property that suffered damage as a result of exposure to fire, smoke and water, and by subsequent asbestos contamination caused by a remediation crew removing drywall and accidentally distributing asbestos-laden insulation.

The claimed items were a total loss and are covered under a standard homeowner’s replacement value insurance policy. According to the policy, in case of total loss appreciating items of property are covered up front at their replacement value, but for depreciating property the insured is only entitled to the item’s actual cash value up front until such time as the property is actually replaced and a purchase receipt is submitted. At that time the insured is paid the difference between actual cash value and the actual replacement cost.

John has handled similar assignments for this client, adjuster Rachel Barnes, in the past. The client again came to John because of his demonstrated knowledge and experience with many different property types. But upon examining the damage claim, John recognizes two properties which may present competency issues: the model train and the Byobu.

Continue reading “Competency (part 2 of 2)”

Competency (part 1 of 2)

COMPETENCY RULE or SCOPE OF WORK RULE: Which Rule Rules? (part 1 of 2)

(by William M. Novotny, AQB Certified USPAP Instructor. This is the first part of a two-part article focusing on the generalist appraiser and the issue of competency. For Part 2 of this article, go here.)

Both the SCOPE OF WORK RULE as well as the COMPETENCY RULE of USPAP contain disclosure requirements that are particularly relevant to the generalist appraiser.

  • The SCOPE OF WORK RULE disclosure requirement mandates that sufficient information be disclosed to allow users to understand the scope of work actually performed in the assignment. A scope of work disclosure typically addresses such issues as the type and extent of research performed, or the assistance that was provided by an expert.
  • The COMPETENCY RULE disclosure requirement calls for the appraiser to disclose a lack of knowledge and/or experience to the client before accepting the assignment, at whatever point in the appraisal process that it becomes apparent to the appraiser that his or her lack of knowledge and experience will prevent the development of credible assignment results. This is referred to as a “competency disclosure.”

The SCOPE OF WORK RULE applies at all times, and requires the appraiser to do whatever is necessary to develop credible assignment results and to disclose the scope of work performed in the appraisal report. The COMPETENCY RULE requires the appraiser to have the knowledge and experience to complete the assignment credibly and to make a disclosure to the client and in the report when unable to do so.

This paper explores critical considerations that go into making a COMPETENCY RULE disclosure. It also examines related USPAP requirements that have particular relevance to generalist personal property appraisers who often encounter objects about which they have limited experience. It is when such properties are encountered that an appraiser must choose whether or not to expand the scope of work or make a competency disclosure to the client.

Continue reading “Competency (part 1 of 2)”

Jurisdictional Exception Rule – Only One Known Example

The Jurisdictional Exception Rule Frequently Misunderstood — Only One Known Example

(by William Novotny) USPAP’s JURISDICTIONAL EXCEPTION RULE is intended to address assignment conditions in which there is a conflict between USPAP requirements and the requirements of federal, state or local jurisdictions. Such conflicts would preclude appraisers from complying with those conflicted parts of USPAP. In this article I will briefly review the RULE, provide a typical example of how it is misapplied, and review the only known example of a jurisdictional exception.

I came across this sole example of a jurisdictional exception during a recent recertification process I underwent in order to renew my qualification as an AQB Certified USPAP Instructor for 2010-2011. That there is only one known example of a jurisdictional exception surprised me—as it did some of my colleagues as well.

USPAP defines a jurisdictional exception as:

JURISDICTIONAL EXCEPTION: an assignment condition established by applicable law or regulation, which precludes an appraiser from complying with a part of USPAP

And regarding the RULE, USPAP states:

“The JURISDICTIONAL EXCEPTION RULE provides a saving or severability clause intended to preserve the balance of USPAP if compliance with one or more of its parts is precluded by the law or regulation of a jurisdiction. When an appraiser properly follows this Rule in disregarding a part of USPAP, there is no violation of USPAP.”

Continue reading “Jurisdictional Exception Rule – Only One Known Example”

What Makes an Appraisal Worthy of Belief? USPAP!

What Makes an Appraisal Worthy of Belief? USPAP! 

(by William M. Novotny, AQB Certified USPAP Instructor) The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) establish minimum requirements for appraisers in order that they are better able to act ethically and competently when serving the public. By complying with USPAP, appraisers can clearly demonstrate to clients that their opinions, analyses and conclusions are worthy of belief—a benchmark by which public trust in the appraisal procession is measured.

But more than appraisal skill and expertise are required to render credible appraisal assignment results. In order to consider the assignment results credible enough to be relied upon, clients must believe that the appraiser has performed the assignment in an ethical, competent, objective and unbiased manner. By complying with USPAP and certifying in the assignment report that they do so, the appraiser provides the client with reason for having such a belief.

Continue reading “What Makes an Appraisal Worthy of Belief? USPAP!”

IRS Appraisal Symposium: FMV Requires Use of “Most Common” Market

IRS Appraisal Symposium: FMV Requires Use of “Most Common” Market 

(by William Novotny Sept. 2008) The Los Angeles Chapter of the ASA recently sponsored an IRS symposium entitled Practicing Before the IRS – A Guide for Personal Property Appraisers at the Atrium Hotel in Irvine, CA. 

The symposium was well-attended and featured four key IRS speakers and Joy Berus, an attorney specializing in art law. From the IRS were Brenda Woolbert, CPA, CVA (Team Manager for the IRS Engineers and Appraisers office in Laguna Niguel, CA); Michael Zarefsky, Esq., CPA, IRS Attorney – Advisor; Susan Kassell, Esq. (Senior Counsel in the IRS Office of the Associate Chief Counsel, Income Tax & Accounting, Washington, DC) and Karen Carolan (Chief, Art Appraisal Services, Chair, Commissioner’s Art Advisory Panel Department of the Treasury, IRS, Washington, DC). Topics included the appraiser’s responsibilities, the requirements for estate and charitable contribution appraisals, IRS proposed changes and appraiser qualifications. 

Though familiar with the complexity of IRS regulations, participants were surprised to learn that there are 243 sections of the IRS Code regarding the use of fair market value. There are over 15 million tax returns filed annually in which taxpayers have valuation issues. As might be expected, abuses and disputes regarding valuations occur. 

Continue reading “IRS Appraisal Symposium: FMV Requires Use of “Most Common” Market”