The Petitioners also attempted
to use a sales comparison approach to establish the value of their property.
But in order to do so, they needed to establish the comparability of the
properties being examined. Conclusory statements that a property is "similar" or "comparable" to another property do
not constitute probative evidence of comparability. Long, 821 N.E.2d at
470. The party seeking to rely on a comparison must explain the characteristics
of the subject property and how those characteristics compare to those of
purportedly comparable properties. Id. at 470-71. The proponent also
must explain how any differences between the properties affect their relative
values. In this case the conclusory information related to the Petitioners’
sales comparison approach (purportedly calculating price per square foot) falls far
short of what would be required for any truly meaningful comparative value
analysis. Id. Even assuming, arguendo, that four other properties
had selling prices between $33.84 per square foot and $46.83 per square foot,
the point does not prove a valuation of the subject property at $51.33 per
square foot is wrong.
In addition, the purportedly
comparable sales took place sometime in 2008—the Petitioners failed to
establish specific dates of sale. To be relevant, however, the record would
need to establish how the selling prices relate to market value-in-use as of
January 1, 2007. O’Donnell v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 864 N.E.2d 90, 95
(Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); see also Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 472
(Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). Nothing in the record relates those sale prices to the
required valuation date. That is another reason those sales do not help to prove
the disputed assessment must be changed.
The Petitioners attempted to
compare their 2008 assessment to the assessments of purportedly comparable
properties, apparently intending to show a lack of uniformity and equality. But
a taxpayer cannot make such a claim simply by comparing assessments without
showing that the property is assessed at a higher percentage of its market
value-in-use than other properties. See Westfield Golf Practice Center, LLC
v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396, 399 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007)
(finding that taxpayer failed to prove a lack of uniformity and equality where
it did not show the market values-in-use of its property or any of the
purportedly comparable properties). Furthermore, this attempted comparison is
simply based on assessed value per square foot. But again, such an approach
lacks the kind of detail and analysis that would be required for any legitimate
conclusion about the relative values of those properties. See Long, 821
N.E.2d at 470-471.
