How TaxStand Builds Your Protest Packet

The Texas property tax protest industry is built on opacity. Most contingency-fee firms don't tell you what comparable properties they used, how they computed the median, or what their actual proposed value was at your hearing. You hand them an authorization, they take a percentage of whatever savings they obtain, and the work happens behind a wall. TaxStand is built the opposite way. Every step of the methodology that goes into your packet is documented below. If you understand what we do, you can verify it. And if you can verify it, the work is worth what we charge.

First principles

Three commitments drive the design of every TaxStand packet:

1. Reproducibility. Anything we put in the packet, you can independently verify by visiting the same public CAD portal we pulled the data from. We include account numbers, neighborhood codes, and source URLs so you can spot-check every number.
2. Defensibility. The argument in the packet is grounded in Texas Tax Code §41.43(b)(3) and the CAD's own published valuations. An Appraisal Review Board cannot dismiss it as "unverified" because they have the same data we used.
3. No magic. If you read this entire page and then opened the eSearch portal for your county, you could build the same packet yourself. We're not selling a secret; we're selling the work of assembling the packet so you don't have to do it.

Where the data comes from

TaxStand uses exclusively publicly-available data from Texas Central Appraisal Districts. We do not use:

• MLS (Multiple Listing Service) data — restricted to licensed real estate professionals; not necessary for unequal-appraisal protests
• Paid proprietary data services (ATTOM, CoreLogic, etc.)
• Zillow Zestimates or third-party automated valuation models
• Any data that you'd have trouble verifying yourself

Specifically, we pull from each county's public appraisal-district portal:

How we select comparable properties

The Texas Tax Code §41.43(b)(3) requires a "reasonable number" of comparable properties, "appropriately adjusted for differences." We apply a deterministic three-step filter:

1Start with the same neighborhood code

Properties in the same CAD-defined neighborhood are presumed comparable for valuation. This is the CAD's own classification, which makes it hard for them to argue against.

2Filter by square footage

We exclude properties more than 25% larger or smaller than the subject. So if your home is 2,096 square feet, comparables must be between 1,572 and 2,620 sqft. This is a standard real-estate appraisal practice; the Texas ARB is familiar with the tolerance.

3Filter by year built

Comparables must be within ±10 years of the subject's year built (when year-built data is available — some CAD records have gaps, in which case we include the property and flag the unknown year). Mixed-vintage neighborhoods get more permissive treatment; pure new-construction subdivisions get tighter (±5 years) filtering.

The output of this filter is typically 8-20 properties, depending on neighborhood density. Anything fewer than 5 we flag as a thin comp dataset (typical in rural Texas counties) and recommend widening the tolerances or supplementing with market-value evidence.

The unequal-appraisal math, exactly

Here is the entire calculation, formula-by-formula:

That's it. Sixth-grade arithmetic. The packet shows you the inputs, the outputs, and the formulas. If you wanted to verify, you'd open the eSearch portal for your county, look up the same comparables, do the same math, and arrive at the same number.

We use the median, not the mean, because the median is robust against outliers and is the methodology Texas ARBs respect. A single oddly-appraised property (one home in your neighborhood inexplicably appraised at $400/sqft) doesn't distort your recommended target.

How we choose the single strongest comparable

Statistical median arguments are rational. But appraisers are humans, and ARB panels are humans, and there's a separate kind of evidence that wins in person: the single comparable that makes the CAD's appraisal look indefensible.

For each protest, we identify a "focus comparable" — preferably one that satisfies all three of:

• Newer year built than the subject
• Larger square footage than the subject
• Lower appraised dollars-per-square-foot than the subject

When all three conditions hold, the implicit argument is: "How can a newer, larger property in the same neighborhood be appraised at a lower per-square-foot rate than this older, smaller one?" That comparison goes on its own page in the packet. It's the visceral version of the median argument.

If no comparable satisfies all three (which happens in some neighborhoods), we fall back to the lowest-$/sqft comparable. Either way, the focus comparable is labeled as such in the packet, and the criteria used to select it are stated explicitly so an appraiser can't accuse us of cherry-picking.

The homestead exemption audit

This is the diagnostic that often saves homeowners more money than the protest itself. The logic:

The most common cause of cap_loss = 0 after a previous year of cap_loss > 0 is a property sale — the prior owner's homestead exemption did not transfer to the new owner, and the new owner has not yet filed their own Form 50-114. (See our full homestead guide for the legal mechanics.)

When the audit fires, the packet includes a dedicated page explaining the situation, citing the relevant statutes (§11.43, §23.23, §11.431), walking through the math specific to the subject property, and providing exact filing instructions for Form 50-114. This is information the homeowner can act on independently from the protest itself — and usually should.

What we do with owner-supplied evidence

The CAD's record is incomplete. It doesn't know about the foundation crack you discovered last year. It doesn't know that the property directly behind you is in disrepair and the county has been force-mowing it. It doesn't know what you paid when you bought the house. This is information only you have.

TaxStand accepts owner-supplied evidence in three categories:

• Neighborhood factors — adjacent disrepair, vacant lots, code violations on neighboring properties, recent commercial development, value-suppressing externalities. We render these as material evidence on a dedicated "Owner-Supplied Evidence" page in the packet.
• Property defects — foundation issues, roof damage, plumbing problems, deferred maintenance, dated finishes. Photos and contractor quotes carry significant weight at informal review. The packet provides a structured way to present them.
• Recent purchase price — if you bought the home below the CAD's appraisal, that purchase price is admissible as market-value evidence under Texas Tax Code §41.43(a-3). We include the comparison in the packet.

None of this is required. The packet works on public CAD data alone. But properly-presented owner-supplied evidence often turns a strong case into an unanswerable one.

How the packet is structured

Every TaxStand packet follows the same structure:

Why we deliver two PDFs, not one

Every TaxStand customer receives two PDFs:

The split exists because the audience for each document is different. The CAD doesn't need to see your homeowner-facing playbook; you don't want the personal copy showing up in your CAD record. Two PDFs, one CLI run, two purposes.

What this approach cannot do

We try to be straight about what TaxStand isn't:

• We cannot guarantee any specific reduction. Protest outcomes depend on the discretion of the CAD and ARB, the strength of your specific neighborhood's comp data, and how you present at hearings. Some cases settle for what the median supports; some settle for less; some fail entirely.
• We cannot represent you at the hearing. Texas Occupations Code Chapter 1152 requires representation by a licensed Property Tax Consultant. We are not licensed and we do not appear on your behalf.
• We cannot help with commercial property protests. Commercial valuation methodology is fundamentally different (income approach vs. comparable sales / unequal appraisal). TaxStand is built for residential property.
• We cannot fix a missing or expired homestead exemption directly. We diagnose it and tell you how to file Form 50-114; the filing is your action.
• We cannot produce strong evidence in neighborhoods with thin comp data. Some rural and exurban neighborhoods have so few residential properties of similar size and vintage that statistical median arguments are weak. We flag this when it applies, and recommend market-value evidence or condition-based arguments.
• We cannot work in counties we have not yet integrated. Each Texas county's CAD has different data structures and access methods. Our scraper infrastructure currently supports Johnson County; we are building Tarrant, Dallas, Denton, and Collin support as soon as the technical pathways are stable.

How to verify everything in your packet

For every property in your packet, including yours and every comparable, the property identifier (account number) is listed. To verify:

1. Go to your county's CAD eSearch portal (e.g., esearch.johnsoncad.com for Johnson County)
2. Search by account number for each property in the packet
3. Compare the appraised value, square footage, year built, and neighborhood code shown in the packet against what the portal displays
4. The numbers should match exactly. If anything is off, contact us — we will investigate and refund or correct as appropriate.

This is the entire trust model. We don't ask you to take our word for the math. We give you the receipts and you can verify them anytime.