Here, the Petitioner contends
that its properties are over-valued based on their appraised values. Rider
argument. According to Mr. Rider, the properties appraised for $9,500 and
$10,500 respectively. Petitioner Exhibit 1. The appraisers certified
that the appraisals were prepared in accordance with USPAP. Id. While
the appraisals value the subject properties as of December 25, 2010, 50 IAC
27-3-2 states, “ …county assessors shall use sales of properties occurring
after January 1 of the calendar year immediately preceding the March 1
assessment date in performing value calibration analysis and sales ratio
studies under this article for the county. For example, sales beginning on
January 1, 2009, shall be used for the March 1, 2010, assessment.” An appraisal
performed in conformance with generally recognized appraisal principles is
often enough to establish a prima facie case that a property’s assessment is
over-valued. See Meridian Towers, 805 N.E.2d at 479. Because the
appraisers used 2009 sales in their sales comparison analysis, the Board finds
that the appraisals are sufficiently related to the proper valuation date to
have probative value. Therefore the Board finds that the Petitioner raised a
prima facie case that its properties were over-valued for the 2010 assessment
year.
