…
Nonetheless, Ms. Castleman did
offer Lance E. Krebs’s appraisal report, in which Mr. Krebs estimated the
subject property’s market value-in-use at $390,000 and the subject lot’s value,
as vacant, at $350,000. Mr. Krebs certified that he performed his appraisal in
conformity with USPAP, and he used a generally accepted appraisal approach—the
sales-comparison approach—to arrive at his valuation opinion.
Although Mr. Krebs estimated
the property’s value as of March 1, 2008—more than a year after the relevant January
1, 2007 valuation date—he relied on sales from 2006 and 2007. Mr. Krebs’s
valuation opinion therefore bears at least some relationship to the subject
property’s value as of the relevant January 1, 2007 valuation date.
…
Thus, Mr. Krebs’s appraisal
convinces the Board that the subject property’s assessment was wrong. If Ms.
Castleman had asked the Board to lower the subject property’s assessment to
match Mr. Krebs’s appraisal, the Board likely would do so. But Ms. Castleman
asked for a land assessment of $473,928 on her Form 131 petition. And her sole
witness reaffirmed that request at the Board’s hearing. Under those
circumstances, the Board will not reduce the subject property’s assessment
below the amount that Ms. Castleman requested.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Castleman_76-006-08-1-5-00001.pdf