Choose Your Location
|
![]() |
Federal real estate is exempt from the District’s commercial property tax. But D.C. adopted legislation in 2004 to tax the “possessory interests” of federal sites — those areas leased to commercial entities for for-profit purposes — in the hopes of capturing some lost revenue.
While the tax affects about 186 businesses, no building is charged more than Union Station and its 100-plus stores. And the organization responsible for maintaining the historic facility says the levy is draining its resources.
The tax “will financially strangle the station, possibly destroying and certainly diminishing one of the District’s premier tourist venues,” David Ball, president of the Union Station Redevelopment Corp., wrote in a Dec. 12 letter to the D.C. Council.
The assessed value of Union Station’s commercial interests will soar from $41 million in 2007 to $158 million in 2008, according to the D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue. The station’s long-term lease holder, New York-based Ashkenazy Acquisition, has a $2.9 million tax bill coming in 2008, a 278 percent jump over last year.
That one bill adds up to 36 percent of all possessory interest taxes due citywide in 2008.
The District appears to be disproportionately taxing Union Station, said Ward 6 Councilman Tommy Wells, who has co-introduced legislation to freeze the tax citywide at 2007 levels while the chief financial officer analyzes the program. D.C., Wells said, “must be careful not to kill the golden goose.”
The redevelopment corporation receives $1 million a year, plus a 50 percent share of Union Station’s net profits. When the tax bill increases, Ball said, the corporation loses money it could spend on capital improvements and upkeep.
Complicating things: The nine-screen cineplex at the station is likely to close “in the near future” due to a lack of revenue, Ball told the council, requiring upward of $8 million in renovations to prepare it for new tenants.
Daniel Levy, outside counsel for Ashkenazy, said the “devastating” tax has thwarted his client’s ability to redevelop the property.
mneibauer@dcexaminer.com



Comments from Examiner Readers
2:51 PM MST on Fri., Jan. 4, 2008 re: "Union Station: Tax threatens retail"
Report as inappropriate
12:02 PM MST on Fri., Jan. 4, 2008
re: "Union Station: Tax threatens retail"
Report as inappropriate
11:18 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 4, 2008
re: "Union Station: Tax threatens retail"
Report as inappropriate
11:04 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 4, 2008
re: "Union Station: Tax threatens retail"
Report as inappropriate
8:06 AM MST on Fri., Jan. 4, 2008
re: "Union Station: Tax threatens retail"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader -- A_Concerned_Citizen_in_DC@ said:
Actually, no. The individual businesses are supposed to pay the tax, not the landlord according to DC Code (DC ST § 47-1005.01). The landlord, The Dept. of Transportation, is tax exempt. I believe that the large possessory interest bill is sent to the Union Station management instead of each tenant as a convenience to management and to reduce some billing costs to the DC tax office. But the liability, based on each lease value, is owed by the businesses and I guess the tax office could just as easily send the bills directly to the businesses and bypass the Union Station management. Management should be merely collecting the taxes from the individual business and forwarding it on to the DC tax office. This is similar to sales taxes -- the business isn't being charged a sales tax; the consumer is, but the business collects the tax and sends it to the DC tax office. The businesses are getting a tax-free ride in a tax exempt building but they should pay their fair share.
78 agree | 58 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
However unlike the neighborhood Starbucks, Union Station is a major transportation hub, tourist attraction and shopping center that outweighs the value of the PIT Tax in sales tax and other revenue and unquantifiable value. You must also take into consideration the difference in maintaining a national landmark vs a coffee shop. I believe the asrticle states 50% of profits go back in to the Station which doesnt leave much to pay the tax.
70 agree | 62 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Jonn Lilyea said:
I think it's funny that Union Station Dev. Corp. is less worried about the bums and derelicts that drive business away from Union Station than they are about the city government taxation taking their profits. Maybe if the place was cleaned up, there'd be more money and they could afford the taxes. I pass through Union Station twice everyday, but because of the hobo population, I wouldn't patronize a business there for all of the tax money in DC.
72 agree | 78 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
More money that can be spent on jewelry and clothes and cronies...I mean "school administrators".
72 agree | 62 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader -- A_Concerned_Citizen_in_DC@ said:
Possessory interest tax is not unique to the District -- other states impose a similar tax on Federal property within their jurisdiction. Possessory interest tax is based on the value of the leases in tax exempt property, not on the market value of the Federal building. For example, if a Starbucks is located in the lobby of a tax exempt building, why should it not have to pay the same property taxes as a Starbucks in a taxable building? Why should the tax exempt location create a business advantage for that one taxable entity? Unfortunately, the Federal government has not cooperated with District government in identifying all the leased spaces within the Federal properties. The GSA has stonewalled a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request from DC Assessors for months and months. If they were to cooperate, then there would be many many more business that must pay their fair share of District real property tax and more tax in the DC coffers.
65 agree | 73 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree