On June 8, 2022, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the City of Philadelphia’s (the “City”) Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the decision of the Commonwealth Court in Duffield House Assocs., L.P. v. City of Phila., 260 A.3d 329 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2021) (“Duffield House”). In that case, the Commonwealth Court had affirmed the trial court’s order, striking of the property owners’ tax year 2018 real estate tax assessments as unconstitutional and ordering a refund of any tax increase over the prior year assessments. The City claimed at trial, and on appeal, that it had not chosen to reassess the property owners’ properties because of their commercial nature — which would have violated the Uniformity Clause of the Pennsylvania Constitution, according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s landmark holding in Valley Forge Towers Apts. N, LP v. Upper Merion Area Sch. Dist. & Keystone Realty Advisors, LLC, 163 A.3d 962 (Pa. 2017). Rather, the City claimed that it has reassessed only commercial properties because ratio studies performed by the City’s Office of Property Assessment (“OPA”) showed that commercial properties were the “most underassessed” properties in the City and had been “grossly underassessed’ for several years. Duffield House, 260 A.3d at 344. But the evidence at trial established otherwise. Id. Expert testimony showed that “there was no gross disparity between the accuracy of assessments of commercial and non-commercial properties which would render the assessment of residential properties for 2018 unnecessary.” Id. In addition, the City’s own expert testified that the OPA’s ratio studies were “seriously flawed” and “unreliable.” Id. 344-45. The record was also replete with evidence — including official statements in public press releases — establishing that the City intentionally targeted commercial properties, and only commercial properties, for reassessment in tax year 2018. Id. 345-46. The Commonwealth Court concluded that the trial court had appropriately exercised its discretion in awarding refunds to the property owners. Id. 346-48. After the Supreme Court’s denial of the City’s Petition, the City no longer has any remaining avenue of appeal. The City is now stuck having to pay substantial refunds of both real estate taxes and use and occupancy taxes, plus interest.