As previously noted, sales
information regarding comparable properties can be one way to help prove what a
more accurate valuation of the subject property is. Toward that end, the
Petitioners presented evidence about a sale of a property located in their
neighborhood at 3105 Georgian Way. But this sale occurred on March 31, 2009,
and nothing in the record specifically relates the 2009 sale price to a value
as of January 1, 2007. (To the extent it is related to the required valuation
date at all, the evidence indicates declining values since 2006.) Therefore,
this 2009 sale fails to help prove a case for a lower assessment. O’Donnell,
854 N.E.2d at 95; Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471.
The Petitioners’ attempted
sales comparison analysis has additional fatal flaws. They offered only
conclusory statements for the $2,000 personal property and $250 home warranty
amounts deducted from the $219,000 sale price of 3105 Georgian Way. Again, such
conclusory statements are not probative evidence. Whitley Products, 704
N.E.2d at 1119. More importantly, the purported analysis is simply based on a
value per square foot ($79.96 per square foot compared to $57.64 per square
foot). It is insufficient to draw any legitimate conclusion about the value of
the subject property. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471. The Board has no
responsibility to review all the documentation to determine whether the
properties actually were comparable. That duty rested with the Taxpayers. The
Taxpayers were responsible for explaining the characteristics of their own
property, how those characteristics compared to those of the purportedly
comparable property, and how any differences affected the relevant market
value-in-use of the properties. Id. While pointing out that both
properties are two-story brick homes was a step in the right direction, much
more specific detail would be required for any kind of meaningful comparative
analysis or conclusion about the actual value of the subject property.
...
The Petitioners’ land is
assessed at the same rate as other lots in their neighborhood. Nevertheless,
they want a lower valuation because a larger lot located on a golf course in an
adjacent subdivision has a lower assessed value. Their cursory description of
the golf course parcel, however, did not establish a basis for meaningful
comparison. See Blackbird Farms Apts., LP v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin.,
765 N.E.2d 711, 715 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2002) (holding that taxpayer failed to
establish comparability of parcels of land where, among other things, taxpayer
did not compare the topography and accessibility of parcels). Furthermore,
simply comparing assessments (rather than sales) is problematic. The Tax Court
has held that it is not enough for a taxpayer to show his own property is
assessed higher than comparable properties. Westfield Golf Practice Center
v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396, 399 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007).
Instead, the taxpayer must present probative evidence that the assessed value
as determined by the assessor is not an accurate market value-in-use. Id.;
P/A Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings Co. Assessor, 842 N.E.2d
899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (focus is on determining whether the assessed
value is actually correct.) Here, the Petitioners failed to do so. They relied
on the conclusory statement that golf course land is more valuable, but such
unsubstantiated conclusions are not probative evidence. Whitley Products,
704 N.E.2d at 1119. The evidence does nothing to help prove the current land
value is too high or what a more accurate land value would be.
