...
The Respondent correctly points out that Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-13 requires land to be devoted to agricultural use before it can be classified and assessed as agricultural. The Respondent further argues that her assessment should stand because the Petitioner failed to offer evidence that he devoted the subject property to agricultural use as of the March 1, 2009 assessment date. But it was not the Petitioner’s burden to prove that the assessment wrong; rather, the Respondent had the burden of proving that the assessment was correct. And the Respondent failed to meet that burden.
The Respondent offered nothing to
show that the subject property’s use had changed between 2008, when it was
assessed as agricultural land, and 2009, when the Assessor re-classified the
property. Indeed, the Respondent offered little evidence
to show how the Petitioner used the subject property at all. At most, the Respondent pointed to the facts
that the Petitioner had not filed a farmer’s personal property tax return and
that the Petitioner did not enter into a Forest Management Plan until October
2011.
But even if one assumes that the
Petitioner devoted the subject property to something other than agricultural
use in 2009 and therefore that the property should not have been assessed as
agricultural land, the Respondent failed to offer any probative evidence to
show what the property’s actual market value-in-use was. The Respondent primarily claimed that the
property’s assessment was valid because (1) the assessment/sale ratios of other
properties fell within statistically acceptable ranges and (2) DLGF accepted
the Respondent’s ratio study.
...
Because the Assessor failed to meet her burden of proof, the subject property's assessment must be returned ot its March 1, 2008, level of $9,600.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Wineinger_19-006-09-1-5-00019.pdf
