The parties agreed that the Respondent had the burden of proof under IC 6-1.1-15-17:
"Both parties agreed this assessment increased more than 5% from 2008 to 2009 and both parties agreed the Respondent has the burden to prove the current assessment is correct. (Even though the subject property was remodeled and changed uses between March 1, 2008 and March 1, 2009.) The Board accepts the agreement on that point for this case."
The Board held that the Respondent failed to meet its burden:
"The Respondent sought to support the assessed value with general evidence about the remodeling, conversion from a medical office to a bank, adjusting effective age, and trending. While those factors probably were important for initial mass assessment purposes, in this appeal that evidence does not prove the property’s actual market value-in-use. The Respondent failed to make a prima facie case."
