The Petitioner failed to
provide sufficient evidence to raise a prima facie case that its property was
over-valued for the 2006 assessment year. The Board reached its decision for
the following reasons:
…
The Petitioner’s representative
first contends that the assessed value of the Petitioner’s property was
incorrect for 2006 based on the property’s 2002 stipulated value. However, the
Indiana Tax Court has held that prior settlement agreements are inadmissible
under Indiana Evidence Rule 408. See Boehning v. State Bd. Of Tax Com’rs,
763 N.E.2d 502, at 504-505 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001). … Allowing taxpayers to use prior settlements … “would
have a chilling effect on the incentive of all assessing officials to resolve
cases outside the courtroom.” Id. Because the property’s assessment in
2002 was the result of an agreement between the Petitioner and the Department
of Local Government Finance, Indiana Evidence Rule 408 prohibits the Petitioner
from using the agreed upon value as evidence in the present case. Similarly,
the settlement agreement itself prohibits such an act. See Petitioner
Exhibit E (the assessed value stipulated within the settlement “does not
represent a final determination of the most appropriate or accurate assessed
valuation of the property,” and that the terms of the settlement “should not be
used as evidence of the assessed valuation” of the property).
Moreover, the Board notes, the
property’s “value” that the parties purportedly stipulated to for 2002 is
unclear. On its face, the stipulation document states that the parties agreed
to “(1) change[] 2 story house into dairy barn (no living area); (2) change[]
shed measurements to 20x40 for 40x72; and (3) [give] 50% obsolescence
depreciation to concrete silo.” Id. But no assessed value is identified
in the stipulation. A hand-written notation in the upper corner of the document
shows two columns of figures: “L 23,400, I 276,600, total 300,000” and “L
23,400, I 106,400, total $129,800.”. … Even if the hand-written notation was determined to
be reliable and admissible evidence of the property’s 2002 value, it would
still be insufficient to show that the property’s assessed value in 2006 was
incorrect. Each assessment and each tax year stand alone. … There are numerous
reasons why the value of a property would change over a five year period, and
it is the Petitioner’s burden to show that the assessment for the year at issue
was incorrect.
…
Finally, the Petitioner’s
representative argues that the Petitioner’s property is not worth its assessed
value. Bennett argument. However, the only evidence Mr. Bennett offered
of the property’s value was his testimony that a realtor from Century 21 said
the Petitioner “would be lucky to get $159 for it right now.” Even if the Board
gave any weight to Mr. Bennett’s hearsay testimony, the valuation date for the
March 1, 2006, assessment was January 1, 2005. 50 IAC 21-3-3. Because Mr.
Bennett failed to relate Mr. Likus’ opinion of the property’s value “right now”
to the property’s value in 2005, the evidence fails to show the property’s 2006
assessment was incorrect. See Long v. Wayne Township Assessor, 821
N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005).
