The Petitioners have a defective geothermal system. Their neighborhood has several inexpensive and poorly maintained residences. And although there is some new construction, it is on the opposite side of State Road 446. But again, those points alone do not make a case for any assessment change because a Petitioner must show the assessment does not accurately reflect the subject property’s market value-in-use. Id.; see also P/A Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings County Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (explaining that to successfully make a case the focus should not be on methodology, but should be on whether the assessed value is actually correct.)
A home in the neighborhood has been offered for sale for several months. The cursory description of that property, however, did not establish how it might be comparable to the subject property. The Petitioners did not even establish what the asking price is. From what was offered in this case, it is impossible to draw any legitimate conclusion about value based on that attempted sale.
The Petitioners’ complaints about changing the tax system and supporting public schools are irrelevant to this case. They do nothing to help establish what the market value-in-use of the subject property is.
The Petitioners presented no probative evidence to support their proposed assessed value. Unsubstantiated conclusions do not constitute probative evidence. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
