…
Here, the Assessor did little to support the subject parcel’s land assessment. She primarily relied on the 2006 sale prices of nearby parcels owned by the Furrows and the Grosecloses. Granted, one can show a property’s value through sales information for comparable properties. … Aside from showing their proximity to the subject parcel, however, the Assessor did nothing to meaningfully compare the Furrow or Groseclose parcels to the subject parcel in terms of characteristics that would tend to affect the parcels’ market values-in-use. The Assessor’s sales data therefore lacks probative value.
Because the Assessor did not offer any probative evidence of the subject parcel’s market value-in-use, she failed to meet her burden of proof. The subject parcel’s land value for March 1, 2007 therefore must be reduced to $17,900—the assessed value determined by the county or township assessor for the immediately preceding assessment date. Ms. Kaehr, however, asked for a land assessment of $17,600. She therefore had the burden of showing that she was entitled to an additional reduction. With that in mind, the Board turns to Ms. Kaehr’s evidence.
…
Ms. Kaehr, through her witness Mr. Kaehr, made two claims: (1) that the subject parcel was assessed too high in light of the sale price and assessments for two nearby parcels, and (2) that neighboring parcels got the benefit of negative influence factors while the subject parcel did not.
Mr. Kaehr’s claims about the Homan parcels fail for the same reason that the Assessor’s reliance on the Furrow and Groseclose sales fail—the lack of any attempt to meaningfully compare the parcels in terms of characteristics that would affect their relative market values-in-use…
Mr. Kaehr’s reliance on the influence factors applied to neighboring parcels similarly lacks probative value. … Mr. Kaehr merely pointed out influence factors that had been applied to other parcels. But he did not explain what characteristics those influence factors addressed or whether the subject parcel has similar characteristics. Indeed, Mr. Kaehr failed to offer any evidence (1) to show that the subject parcel has any peculiar attributes that would justify applying a negative influence factor, or (2) to quantify an appropriate influence factor.
Thus, because she failed to offer any probative evidence to show that the market value-in-use of the subject parcel’s land was less than $17,900, Ms. Kaehr is not entitled to have the parcel’s land assessment reduced below that amount.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Kaehr_76-011-07-1-5-00235.pdf
