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.
