The $37 kit ships the worksheet and the selection rules. Pro swaps the math for a live calculator — auto-applies time/site/GLA/condition adjustments, outputs a defended dollar value per comp, and writes the variance argument you hand the appraisal review board. Free to try, $89 to keep on this email.
Type the subject property and up to five comps. The calculator scores each line item (time, site, GLA, condition) the same way the worksheet in the $37 kit does it by hand — then outputs a per-comp adjusted value, a roster mean, a variance percentage against the county-assessed value, and a copyable variance narrative you paste into the appeal letter.
Refresh the page and the values clear — the calculator is self-contained and doesn’t store anything. Upgrade to Pro and the calculator plus the state filing package, annotated example packet, and build video stay on the address you pay with.
Condition is 1–5 (Poor → Excellent). Auto-derive uses these fields to score each comp’s adjustment grid below.
Up to 5 comps. Same neighborhood code, same grade band, same assessment window as the subject.
| Line | Source rule | Adjustment ($) |
|---|---|---|
| TIME | default · days since comp.saleDate × 0.5%/yr × comp.salePrice · $0 | |
| SITE | default · (subject.lotSize − comp.lotSize) × $25 / sq ft · $0 | |
| GLA | $0 · (subject − comp) × $150 / sq ft | |
| CONDITION | $0 · (subject − comp) × $2,500 | |
| LOCATION | default · (subject − comp) × 2% × comp.salePrice · $0 | |
| Adjusted value | — | |
Finish a comp row above — sale price, sqft, and condition — and the supported value appears here.
Rounded to the nearest $250 — the granularity an ARB reads as defended, not guessed.
—
Comps roster · generated for the subject property on October 2, 2026. No comps met the selection bar yet — finish at least one comp row above.
Stripe-hosted checkout. Card details stay on Stripe; if onboarding is incomplete we’ll tell you.
The firm would have walked away with 25%–33% of this. You didn’t hire a firm. The packet is paid for once, the refund is yours, and the rest of the work is just the appeal itself.
The packet is the spine of your case. Pro adds the calculator that scores the comp roster and the state filing package, on-ramps, and escalation guide that carry it through the hearing.
Record-card audit
Comps calculator — auto-applies time/site/GLA/condition and outputs a defended dollar value per comp.
Comps worksheet + selection rules
State-specific filing instructions — all 50 states, with the published deadline calendar each assessment season.
Free comp sources list
Annotated example packet — a real winning appeal, walked through page by page.
Evidence-packet template
Start-to-finish build video — what to fill, in what order, with the template open.
Three appeal-letter templates
Escalation guide — what to add when informal review denies, and when to escalate to the board of equalization.
County deadline lookup
Rental & multi-property section — how to defend a portfolio without cobbling together three separate appeals.
Read the rental & multi-property examples →Pro is $89 once. A typical refund is several thousand dollars. Once your refund covers Pro more than a handful of times — i.e., you would have made a single appeal that year — Pro is cheaper than the firm you didn't hire.
Try your own number with the calculator above — type a refund and the payback ratio updates live.
Already on Pro? See the annual subscription for refresh-every-filing-season updates →
A $5,000 refund vs the $89 tier.
1.78%
of the first-year savings — Pro is cheaper than the firm you didn't hire on any refund in the four-figure range.
Income-producing properties need four adjustments the owner-occupied worksheet does not produce, and they are what the assessor’s office most often misses. (1) Cap rate vs. sale-comparables — defend the value from NOI and a market cap rate instead of leaning on per-sqft comps alone. (2) Expense normalization — strip the owner’s unrecorded management hours and under-reserved repairs back out of effective NOI so it is comparable to the comp set. (3) Vacancy — re-grade every comp at its actual leased fraction, not its roll value, so the subject is not penalized for full occupancy against a comp that is half-empty. (4) Turnover — bake a turnover reserve into effective gross income so a lease that is about to roll does not get priced as if it is permanent.
The $89 Pro calculator handles a single parcel and a portfolio the same way: it scores time, site, GLA, and condition per comp, outputs a defended dollar value, and writes a variance narrative. The difference for rentals and multi-parcel packets is in the framing of the audit — NOT in the math. Below are two worked examples that show how the same packet carries a landlady with one rental duplex and a landlady with four scattered parcels through the appraisal review board without drafting four separate appeals from scratch.
The county is leaning on three arms-length sales of comparable rentals in the same neighborhood to defend an assessed value of $310,000. Two of those sales closed within the last six months at $268,000 and $274,000 — both small multi-family comps on slightly smaller lots. The third closed at $302,000, but it was a single-family sale misclassified as a duplex during the assessor’s data pull. The right defense is NOT a copy of the owner-occupied worksheet — it is an INCOME APPROACH NARRATIVE that re-grades the county’s third comp and explains why, with the subject’s actual NOI of $1,540/mo on a full-unit lease (cap rate of 6.2% on the existing roll), the GRM implied by the two true rental comps is more defensible than the assessor’s misclassified third line. State in the letter: the subject’s effective gross income of $24,480 minus documented operating expenses of $6,000 produces NOI of $18,480; at the market GRM of 13.5 derived from the two clean rental comps, the income approach supports $249,480 — a different, defensible number, and the one you ask the board to adopt. The same variance argument the calculator writes works for income-approach comps; only the framing changes.
Each line is a one-cell rule — inputs on the left, formula on the right. Paste the matching rule into your adjustment column whether you lead with the income approach or with sale-comps.
CAP RATE subject_value = noi / cap_rate (cap_rate as decimal, e.g. 0.062) GRM subject_value = annual_egi / grm (gross rent × 12, minus vacancy) EXPENSE NORMALIZATION effective_noi = egi − adjusted_opex (insurance + repairs + mgmt + vacancy/turnover reserve) VACANCY + TURNOVER vacancy_factor = (vacant_months / 12) + turnover_reserve_pct ; effective_egi = gross_rent × (1 − vacancy_factor) TIME adjusted_price = sale_price × (1 ± time_pct) (per quarter since sale) SITE adjusted_price = prior × (1 ± site_pct) (lot size, frontage, topography) GLA adjusted_price = prior ± (delta_sqft × subject_per_sqft) (gross living area) CONDITION adjusted_price = prior × (1 ± condition_pct) (Poor / Fair / Average / Good / Excellent) LOCATION adjusted_price = prior × (1 ± location_pct) (neighborhood tier, school zone, flood)
A landlady holding four scattered rental parcels in the same county does not file four self-contained appeals — she files ONE packet with one composite cover letter and four record-card audits. The county already knows she owns all four; framing it as a single dossier is tighter, makes the cumulative loss easier for the board to read, and shares the comp roster across all four lines so the county’s assessor can’t cross-cite a different comp set against each parcel. The audit below is the per-parcel record-card walk; the copy-paste block is the comp roster + adjustment ledger the calculator produces for the packet.
412 Birch Ln · duplex · built 1978 · 1,680 sqft · assessed $310,000
Record card fields above; NOI $18,480/mo on full lease, cap rate 6.2%; GRM 13.5.
Comp 1 (-3% time, -2% site, +4% GLA, 0% condition) → $267,200; Comp 2 (-3% time, 0% site, +4% GLA, -2% condition) → $272,800. Variance 10.6%.
1187 Oak St · single-family · built 1996 · 1,210 sqft · assessed $245,000
Record card fields above; not a rental, owner-occupied worksheet; per-sqft $158.
Comp 1 (-3% time, +2% site, -3% GLA, 0% condition) → $236,400; Comp 2 (-3% time, 0% site, -3% GLA, +2% condition) → $251,100. Variance 3.8%.
224 Magnolia Ct · duplex · built 1985 · 1,540 sqft · assessed $288,500
Record card fields above; NOI $1,280/mo on full lease, cap rate 6.4%; GRM 13.0.
Comp 1 (-3% time, -1% site, +5% GLA, 0% condition) → $249,900; Comp 2 (-3% time, 0% site, +5% GLA, -2% condition) → $255,800. Variance 11.3%.
99 Aspen Way · single-family · built 2002 · 1,420 sqft · assessed $262,000
Record card fields above; not a rental, owner-occupied worksheet; per-sqft $184.
Comp 1 (-3% time, 0% site, -2% GLA, 0% condition) → $256,900; Comp 2 (-3% time, 0% site, -2% GLA, -2% condition) → $259,400. Variance 1.9%.
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
OVERRULED · MULTI-PARCEL APPEAL · RECORD-CARD AUDIT + COMP LEDGER
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Filed: 2026 assessment season · County: example · Owner: same
Subject: 4 scattered parcels · same county · composite packet
┌──────────┬─────────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────┐
│ PARCEL │ ADDRESS · TYPE · AGE │ ASSESSED · ENGINE │
├──────────┼─────────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────┤
│ A │ 412 Birch Ln · DUPLEX · 78 │ $310,000 · $184/sqft │
│ B │ 1187 Oak St · SFR · 96 │ $245,000 · $202/sqft │
│ C │ 224 Magnolia Ct · DUPLEX·85│ $288,500 · $187/sqft │
│ D │ 99 Aspen Way · SFR · 02 │ $262,000 · $184/sqft │
└──────────┴─────────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────┘
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PARCEL A · 412 Birch Ln · DUPLEX · 1,680 sqft · assessed $310,000
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Strategy: income approach — owner-occupied worksheet does not apply.
NOI: $1,540/mo × 12 = $18,480
OpEx: $6,000/yr (documented; insurance + repairs + mgmt)
Eff. NOI: $18,480
Cap rate: 6.2% (subject) · 13.5 GRM (two true rental comps)
Income impl.: $18,480 / 0.062 = $298,065 GRM impl.: 13.5 × ...
Comp roster + adjustments:
Comp 1 • -3% time • -2% site • +4% GLA • 0% condition → $267,200
Comp 2 • -3% time • 0% site • +4% GLA • -2% condition → $272,800
Roster mean: $270,000 Variance: 10.6%
Defense line: county comp 3 misclassified (single-family, not duplex);
income approach confirms assessor’s two true rentals.
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PARCEL B · 1187 Oak St · SFR · 1,210 sqft · assessed $245,000
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Strategy: owner-occupied worksheet (no rental comps needed).
Per-sqft: $158 (subject) Per-sqft comp range: $162–$170
Comp roster + adjustments:
Comp 1 • -3% time • +2% site • -3% GLA • 0% condition → $236,400
Comp 2 • -3% time • 0% site • -3% GLA • +2% condition → $251,100
Roster mean: $243,750 Variance: 3.8%
Defense line: assessor’s per-sqft $202 was based on a 2024 comp that
has since closed (time decay); the two true 2025 comps
land at $162–$170/sqft.
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PARCEL C · 224 Magnolia Ct · DUPLEX · 1,540 sqft · assessed $288,500
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Strategy: income approach — same framework as Parcel A.
NOI: $1,280/mo × 12 = $15,360
OpEx: $4,800/yr
Eff. NOI: $15,360 · Cap rate: 6.4% · GRM (true duplex comps): 13.0
Comp roster + adjustments:
Comp 1 • -3% time • -1% site • +5% GLA • 0% condition → $249,900
Comp 2 • -3% time • 0% site • +5% GLA • -2% condition → $255,800
Roster mean: $252,850 Variance: 11.3%
Defense line: assessor’s roll priced this parcel as a single-family;
per the record card it is a duplex, and the income
approach converges with the two true duplex comps.
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
PARCEL D · 99 Aspen Way · SFR · 1,420 sqft · assessed $262,000
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Strategy: owner-occupied worksheet (youngest parcel — limited comps).
Per-sqft: $184 (subject) Per-sqft comp range: $181–$189
Comp roster + adjustments:
Comp 1 • -3% time • 0% site • -2% GLA • 0% condition → $256,900
Comp 2 • -3% time • 0% site • -2% GLA • -2% condition → $259,400
Roster mean: $258,150 Variance: 1.9%
Defense line: assessor’s $184/sqft is on the high end of the comp
range; the two 2025 sales bracket the lower third.
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
COMPOSITE COVER-LETTER NARRATIVE (paste into the appeal letter)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
I respectfully request a reduction on four parcels held at 412 Birch
Ln, 1187 Oak St, 224 Magnolia Ct, and 99 Aspen Way. Each parcel has
been audited using the record-card fields above, scored against the
two most recent arm’s-length sales of comparable properties, and
individually defended using either the owner-occupied worksheet
(Parcels B and D) or the income approach + GRM cross-check (Parcels
A and C). Roster mean and variance % figures for each parcel are
shown above; the cumulative variance across the four parcels is
consistent with the per-line numbers and supports the reductions
requested in the per-parcel schedules attached.
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Paste the ledger outline into the appeal packet. The four parcel-specific sections are interchangeable — copy each block, swap in your subject data, and the variance narrative the calculator produced is the same language you paste back into the cover letter at the end of the block.
Not legal advice. Overruled ships information and templates — checklist, worksheet, letter forms, evidence-pack template, and a filing-window guide — so you can prepare and represent yourself at an appraisal review board hearing. It is not a substitute for a property tax attorney, especially for rentals, multi-property, commercial, or matters in active litigation. Paid firms typically take a percentage of your first-year savings; the packet and the Pro tier exist so that money stays yours.