But was the purchase of the
subject property after foreclosure the market norm for this neighborhood? No—in
fact, the Petitioners specifically distinguished their purchase on that basis.
They argued that other sales had higher prices because no foreclosure
was involved and for that reason there simply are no comparable sales.
According to the Petitioners, this is the reason their purchase price shows
what the assessment should be. But they provided no authority or substantial
argument to support how that conclusion might satisfy generally accepted
appraisal principles. To the contrary, the Petitioners’ case leads the Board
to conclude that their purchase price is not a reliable indication of market value-in-use.
Accordingly, they failed to show that their purchase price was a reliable
indicator of market value.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Board Finds Taxpayer Failed to Show Foreclosure Sale Represented Market Value
In a few cases convincing
evidence has established that forced sales dominate a particular market. Under
those circumstances, even forced sales can be relevant. See Lake County
Assessor v. U.S. Steel Corp, 901 N.E.2d 85, 91-92 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2009)
(finding that Board did not err in relying of bankruptcy sales where taxpayer
proved that such sales were the market norm in the steel industry).
