The Petitioner also contends
that, because the two properties that sold were assessed for 21.6% and 24.7%
over their sale prices, properties as a whole are over-assessed and therefore
its property’s value should be reduced by 25%. However, that argument, and the
Petitioner’s argument that four properties in the subject property’s
neighborhood did not increase in value, while its property’s value increased
13.8% between 2009 and 2010, also fail to support a change in the Petitioner’s
property’s assessed value.
A lack of uniformity and
equality in a mass-appraisal assessment for a class or stratum of properties
may be inferred from analyzing the ratios of assessment to sale price for a
subgroup of properties within that class or stratum. See MANUAL at 20
(Explaining that a ratio study “statistically measures the accuracy and
uniformity of the assessments produced by the mass appraisal method.”). Where a
ratio study shows that a given property is assessed above the common level of
assessment, that property’s owner may be entitled to an equalization adjustment…
But ratio studies involve relatively
sophisticated statistical comparisons that meet professionally accepted
standards. See Kemp v. State, 726 N.E.2d 395,404 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 2000)
(“A sales ratio study, prepared using professionally acceptable standards,
would measure the uniformity of assessments under a market based assessment
system.”); see also, IAAO Standard, passim (describing the
statistical analyses used in ratio studies). Such studies must be based on a
statistically reliable sample of properties that actually sold. See Bishop
v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 743 N.E.2d 810, 813 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (citing
Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Markham, 632 So. 2d 272, 276 (Fla. Dist.
Co. App. 1994)). The Petitioner failed to establish that its evidence satisfied
these requirements.
Simply choosing two sales from
a taxing district that may be undervalued is insufficient to show that the
Petitioner’s property should be adjusted downward accordingly. Even if the
sales comprised the entire universe of sales in the Petitioner’s neighborhood,
the Petitioner failed to show that the two sales were a sufficient sample size
from which to draw the inference the Petitioner urges the Board to draw.
Ultimately, two properties in one neighborhood do not show a systematic
underassessment of residential property in a taxing district. See Moffett v.
Ind. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 2009 Ind. Tax LEXIS 60 (Ind. Tax Ct. Dec.
16, 2009) (unpublished decision) (Article 10, § 1 of the Indiana Constitution
"deals with the uniformity and equal rate of assessment and taxation of
property within the taxing district or locality in which the particular tax
is levied.") (emphasis added).
