Friday, July 20, 2012

Respondent with Burden Fails to Support Property's Assessed Value

Here, the Petitioner’s property’s assessed value increased from $75,300 in 2006 to $121,300 in 2007. This is an increase of 61%. The Respondent, therefore, has the burden of proving the Petitioner’s property’s assessment is correct.

The Respondent failed to sufficiently support the subject property’s March 1, 2007, assessed value. The Board reaches this conclusion for the following reasons:


The Respondent’s representative first submitted a list of land rates for various neighborhoods in Hammond to show the difference in value between properties on Summer Street and properties on Indianapolis Boulevard. However, simply showing that different neighborhoods have different land values does nothing to show that the Petitioner’s property’s land was assessed correctly.

The Respondent’s representative also submitted assessment information for a neighboring property to show that the properties were assessed uniformly. However, Ms. Miller failed to present any evidence as to how those values were determined or to show that the assessed value of the Petitioner’s property reflected the property’s market value-in-use. Instead, Ms. Miller merely testified that the land values “were based on sales.” While the rules of evidence generally do not apply in the Board’s hearings, the Board requires some evidence of the accuracy and credibility of the evidence. Statements that are unsupported by probative evidence are conclusory and of no value to the Board in making its determination. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998); and Herb v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 656 N.E.2d 890, 893 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995).

In order to carry its burden, the Respondent must do more than merely assert that it assessed the property correctly. See Canal Square v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 694 N.E.d2d 801, 808 (Ind. Tax Ct. Apr. 24, 1998) (mere recitation of expertise insufficient to rebut prima facie case). Here, the Respondent failed to provide any evidence of the property’s market value-in-use. Because the Respondent failed to establish a prima facie case that the property’s 2007 assessment was correct, the property’s assessed value must therefore be reduced to its 2006 level.