Board Finds Evidence of Comparable Sales and Assessments Insufficient to Raise a Prima Facie Case

The Petitioners tried to rely on a comparison approach to establish the value of the subject property by presenting evidence about the assessed value of five purported comparables: the Seitz property (Exhibit 2), the Weidenbenner property (Exhibit 3), the Hoffman property (Exhibit 4), the Stenftenagel property (Exhibit 5), and the Hopf property (Exhibit 6). Conclusory statements that properties are “similar” or “comparable” to one another, however, are not sufficient for any meaningful analysis. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470. To make a case, the comparison must explain the characteristics of the subject property and how those characteristics compare to those of purportedly comparable properties. It also must explain how any differences between the properties affect their relative values. Id. at 470-71. The Petitioners offered some data about the assessments of these other properties with a little testimony about similarities and differences such as size and location. But the totality of the case falls short of what would be required for any meaningful comparative analysis or conclusion about what the market value-in-use of the subject property is.

Furthermore, simply comparing the assessment of the subject property with a few other assessments does not prove that the assessed value of the subject property must be changed. Westfield Golf Practice Center, LLC v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007). The Tax Court held that it is not enough for a taxpayer to show that its property is assessed higher than other comparable properties. Instead, the taxpayer must present probative evidence to show that the assessed value does not accurately reflect market value-in-use. Here, the Petitioner offered no probative evidence that the current assessment did not accurately reflect the market value-in use of their property. The comparison with other assessments does not support any conclusion about what a more accurate market value-in-use for the subject property might be.

It is a “cardinal principle that each tax year stands on its own.” Where a taxpayer challenges an assessment, the “resolution of that challenge does not depend on how the property was previously assessed.” Barth, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 699 N.E.2d 800, 806 n.14 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998). Therefore, how the assessment of the subject property changed from 2002 is not relevant to determining what an accurate market value-in-use is for the subject property as of March 1, 2010. Similarly, a tax bill is a function of several variables including assessed value, tax rates, exemptions, and deductions. The amount of the Petitioners’ taxes and how much this amount may have increased from prior years does not help to prove what an accurate assessed value is.

http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Buechlein_19-002-10-1-5-00026.pdf