The assessor determined the 2007 through 2009 assessed values did not increase, with the assessment for each year set at $619,200. During the appeals process the PTABOA discovered omitted improvements that increased the 2009 assessed value to $665,600.
The Petitioner’s argument that there was more than 5% increase with the 2008 assessment depends on calculating from a substantially reduced valuation. But the settlement agreement to change the 2007 assessment to $547,400 does not support application of the burden shifting provision in Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2.
Judicial policy strongly favors settlement agreements. They allow courts to operate more efficiently and allow parties to fashion the outcome of their disputes through mutual agreement. Our Supreme Court has held that “[t]he law encourages parties to engage in settlement negotiations in several ways. It prohibits the use of settlement terms or even settlement negotiations to prove liability for or invalidity of a claim or its amount. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 820 N.E.2d 1222, 1227 (Ind. 2005). The strong policy justification for denying settlements precedential effect in a property tax case is that allowing parties to use the settlement would have a chilling effect on the incentive of the parties to resolve cases. Id. at 1228.
Coupled with Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2, these cases present an unusual scenario. Nevertheless, general principles about the limitations of settlements are persuasive. There are many reasons for parties to make such agreements. We will not speculate what those reasons might have been and we will not apply the settlement to other matters. Specifically, the settlement agreement for 2007 did not establish a new base line for purposes of the 5% rule in the burden shifting statute in the other appeals.
The 2009 assessment, however, presents a different situation. The assessed value increased from $619,200 in 2008 to $665,600 in 2009, an increase of approximately 7.5%. If the numbers were the only consideration, then Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 would dictate that the Respondent must prove the 2009 assessed valuation is correct. But this statute also requires comparing assessments for the same property. The Respondent presented undisputed evidence that the PTABOA made several corrections, including the addition of two previously omitted utility sheds. The Petitioner did not dispute those corrections. Therefore, the 2009 assessment was not for the same property.
The language of the statute must be applied as it was written. “Where the language is unambiguous, the Court has no power to construe the statute for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation.” Joyce Sportswear Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 684 N.E.2d 1189, 1192 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997). Under the plain language of Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2, the burden shifts to the assessor when the assessed value of the same property increases by more than five percent. Here, the 2008 and 2009 assessments are not for the same property. Therefore, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 does not apply to the 2009 assessment.
Accordingly, the Petitioner has the burden of proof in both the 2008 and 2009 appeals.
The Petitioner did not meet its burden of proof. The Petitioner did not offer any substantial market value-in-use evidence. According to Mr. Smith’s conclusory statement, the agreed 2007 assessed value of $547,400 should be carried forward to 2008 and 2009. But such unsupported conclusions do not help make a case.
…
