The Petitioners also contend
that the property under appeal was over-valued based on the income approach to
value. Peters testimony… Here,
the Petitioners offered 2011 rental and expense information from the subject
property. Petitioner Exhibit 3. The Petitioners, however, provided no
evidence to demonstrate whether the property’s income and expenses were typical
for comparable properties in the market…
Moreover, the Petitioners used their 2011 income and expenses to
estimate the property’s market value. Peters testimony; Petitioner Exhibit
3. But the Petitioners failed to explain how the property’s 2011 income and
expenses demonstrates or relates to the property’s value as of March 1, 2010. See
Long v. Wayne Township Assessor, 812 N.E.2d 466, 469-471 (Ind. Tax Ct.
2005).
In addition, the Petitioners
failed to adequately support their choice of capitalization rates… Thus, the
Board concludes that the Petitioners’ income analysis fails to raise a prima
facie case that the subject property’s value should be lowered.
Finally, the Petitioners
contend that the assessor erred in assessing the value of the Petitioners’ property
because if the assessor assessed the property for its current use as a
commercial building, the size of the lot would not matter, and if the assessor
was assessing the property for its “highest and best use,” the assessor should
have assessed the land only, because the “best use” of the Petitioners‟ property would be to “bulldoze” the improvements. Such
unsupported contentions, however, do not rebut the presumption that the
property’s assessment was correct for the 2010 assessment year…
To the extent that the
Petitioners contend that their building does not comply with ADA standards or
the heating system is inadequate can be seen as a claim for obsolescence, this
argument also fails. It is not sufficient for the Petitioners to merely
identify random factors that may cause the property to be entitled to an
obsolescence adjustment.
…
Ultimately, a taxpayer fails to
sufficiently rebut the presumption that an assessment is correct by simply
contesting the method used to compute the assessment. Eckerling v. Wayne
Township Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 678 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). Instead, the
Petitioners must show that the assessment does not accurately reflect the
subject property’s market value-in-use… Because, as the Board found above, the
Petitioners failed to show that the property’s assessed value is not a
reasonable measure of the property’s true tax value, the Petitioners failed to
raise a prima facie case that their property’s assessed value should be
lowered.
