The Respondent’s representative admitted that the Petitioners’
property was over-valued for 2008, but she contends the correct value for the
property was $483,600 based on the average sales price of properties located on
the golf course in the Petitioners’ neighborhood...
…
Here, the Respondent presented no evidence to show that her
offered properties were comparable to the property under appeal. In fact, based
on the Respondent’s evidence that sale prices for properties in the Petitioners’
neighborhood ranged from $133.93 per square foot to $217.81 per square foot in
2006 and 2007, the Board can infer that the homes in the Petitioners’ neighbor
varied a great deal. Because the Respondent’s representative made no attempt to
identify or value the differences between the properties, the Respondent’s sales
comparable analysis has little probative value. …
[For 2009] the Petitioners argue that their property is over-valued based on the property’s appraised value. … But the Petitioners omitted key portions of Ms. Lewellen’s appraisal report. For example, the page offered did not certify that Ms. Lewellen followed Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). More importantly, the report’s missing pages appear to contain key information about Ms. Lewellen’s analysis. For example, in performing her sales comparison analysis, Ms. Lewellen adjusted the sale prices of her three comparable properties. Yet the summary of Ms. Lewellen’s sales comparison analysis, in which she presumably explained her adjustments, is contained in an “Attached Addendum” that the Petitioners did not submit.
Also, the appraiser estimated the subject property’s value as
of March 27, 2009. Jacobsen testimony; Petitioner Exhibit 1. However,
the valuation date for the March 1, 2009, assessment date was January 1, 2008.
The Petitioners failed to show how the March 27, 2009, estimate of their property’s
market value was relevant to the January 1, 2008, valuation date for the March
1, 2009, assessment date. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471 (holding that an
appraisal indicating a property’s value for December 10, 2003, lacked probative
value in an appeal from a 2002 assessment because the taxpayer did not explain
how it related to the relevant valuation date). Thus, in light of the
Petitioners’ decision to omit key portions of Ms. Lewellen’s appraisal report,
the Board gives little to no weight to Ms. Lewellen’s valuation opinion.
…http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Jacobsen_79-017-08-1-5-00001_and_09-00001.pdf
