Board Finds Assessor Failed to Rebut Taxpayer's Appraisal

Here, the Brownings ... offered Mr. Kruse’s professional valuation opinion that the subject property’s market value was $136,000 as of January 1, 2006—the valuation date that applied to the March 1, 2007 assessments at issue in the Brownings’ appeals.  Mr. Kruse, who is a certified appraiser with experience in the local market, certified that he performed his appraisal in conformance with USPAP.  He considered all three traditional approaches to value and developed an estimate under one of them—the sales-comparison approach.  In light of Mr. Kruse’s appraisal, the Brownings made a prima facie case that the subject property’s assessment was wrong and that the property’s true tax value was $136,000.

The burden therefore shifted to the Assessor to impeach or rebut Mr. Kruse’s valuation opinion.  While she attempted to do both, she succeeded in doing neither. 

In an effort to impeach Mr. Kruse’s appraisal, Ms. Olinger pointed to Mr. Kruse’s decision to use the first sale of the Deller property instead of the second sale, which had a significantly higher sale price.  But the only evidence that Ms. Olinger pointed to in support of her position that the Deller property actually sold twice in 2005 was the property’s record card, which simply lists two transfers and sale prices from that year.  The card, however, includes little other information about either transaction.  Under those circumstances, Mr. Kruse was more than justified in using the first sale, which unlike the later sale, was listed in MLS, exposed to the market for 158 days, and verified as an arm’s length transaction.

Ms. Olinger also attempted to support the subject property’s assessment by pointing to what she described as comparable land sales.  But she did little to explain how most of the properties involved in those sales compared to the subject property or to explain how any differences may have affected the properties’ relative values.  Thus, Ms. Olinger’s analysis was too superficial to be probative of the subject property’s market value-in-use.  See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471-72 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005)(holding that sales data lacked probative value where taxpayers failed to explain how the characteristics of their property compared to the characteristics of purportedly comparable properties or how any differences between the properties affected their relative market values-in-use)... 

Thus, Mr. Kruse’s valuation opinion is the only persuasive evidence of the subject property’s January 1, 2006 market value-in-use.  The subject property’s assessment therefore must be reduced to $136,000—the amount that Mr. Kruse estimated in his appraisal.

http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Browning_76-011-07-1-5-00090_and_91.pdf