Mr. Gillentine, on the other hand, pointed to what he described as comparable lots in Heron Pointe that were listing and selling for less than what the subject property was assessed for. But he offered no evidence to show that the Heron Pointe lots were actually comparable to the subject property or to explain how any relevant differences affected the properties’ relative values. See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d at 470-71 (finding that taxpayers’ sales data lacked probative value where taxpayers failed to explain how the characteristics of their purportedly comparable properties compared to the taxpayers’ property or how any differences affected the properties’ market values-in-use). Plus, Mr. Gillentine’s evidence about what Heron Pointe properties were listing and selling for related to dates well after the January 1, 2007 valuation date at issue in this appeal. See Pet’rs Ex. 6 (sale and listing information on sheet document dated December 1, 2009).
Thus, if the Assessor acted properly when she reclassified the subject property for the March 1, 2008, assessment date, the property’s sale price is the best evidence of its true tax value. To answer that question, the Board turns to Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-12. Under that statute, land must be reassessed based on its new classification when it is subdivided into lots, rezoned for a different use, or actually put to a different use. I.C. § 6-1.1-4-12(d). The statute, however, also contains what is commonly referred to as the “developer’s discount.” Under the developer’s discount, assessors may not reclassify land that a developer holds for sale in the ordinary course of business until certain triggering events occur, one of which is a transfer of the land to a person who is not a developer. I.C. § 6-1.1-4-12(h)(1). And that is exactly what happened here. The Assessor reclassified (and therefore reassessed) the subject property on the next assessment date after the Gillentines bought it from a developer.
Indeed, the Gillentines did not really argue that the Assessor violated the developer’s discount statute or even that their property is worth less than what it was assessed for. Instead, the Gillentines claimed that they were the victims of unequal assessments and that the remedy is to lower the subject property’s assessment to $1,300. But Mr. Gillentine acknowledged that most lots in the subdivision were assessed at $40,000 per acre and even offered evidence of three lots that were assessed using a base rate of $40,000 per acre. That is consistent with the Assessor’s evidence showing that the base rates for the subject property’s assessment neighborhood were $40,000 for the first acre of residential land and $18,000 per acre for any excess land. Thus, the subject land was assessed consistently with most of the other land in the neighborhood.
