Because the properties’ values increased more than 5% over the previous year’s assessments, the assessor has the burden to prove the assessments were correct in 2008. See Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2. To the extent that the Petitioner seeks assessments below the previous year’s level, however, the Petitioner bears the burden.
…
Here, the Respondent’s representative argues that the Petitioner’s properties’ assessments were valid because the sales ratio studies for 2007 and 2008 fell within the state requirements for proper assessments and the DLGF approved the Respondent’s ratio studies. Potts testimony. However, the Respondent’s representative offered no evidence or support for the premise that an assessment is correct even if it exceeds a property’s market value-in-use as long as assessments in general are within acceptable statistical ranges for measuring the overall uniformity, equality, and accuracy of mass appraisals. See also Canal Square v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 694 N.E.d2d 801, 808 (Ind. Tax Ct. Apr. 24, 1998) (in order to carry its burden, the assessor must do more than merely assert that it assessed the property correctly). Thus, the Respondent’s representative failed to establish a prima facie case that the properties’ 2008 assessed values were correct.
Because the assessor failed to meet its burden of proof, the subject properties’ March 1, 2008, assessments must be reduced to their previous year’s level: for Franks Lodge lot 3, the total assessed value was $296,600 and for Franks Lodge lot 2, the assessed value was $97,500; for a combined assessed value of $394,100. That, however, does not end the Board’s inquiry because the Petitioner requested an assessed value of $333,000 for its properties. As explained above, the Petitioner has the burden of proving that she is entitled to that additional reduction. The Board therefore turns to the Petitioner’s evidence.
…
Here, the Petitioner’s witness contends that the Petitioner’s properties are over-assessed based on the properties’ appraised value. C. Budreau testimony. In support of this contention, Mr. Budreau submitted an appraisal report prepared by an Indiana certified appraiser in which the appraiser estimated the value of the property to be $333,000 as of December 30, 2008. Petitioner Exhibit 2. The appraiser certified that her report conformed to USPAP. Id. Appraisals performed in accordance with generally recognized appraisal principles are often enough to establish a prima facie case. See Meridian Towers, 805 N.E.2d at 479.
While the appraisal estimates the property’s value almost two years after the relevant valuation date of January 1, 2007, the appraiser used properties that sold during 2007 and 2008 in her sales comparison approach. In addition to using two 2007 sales, the Board notes that the appraiser did not adjust any of her comparable sales for the date of sale – suggesting that the appraiser did not believe that property values changed sufficiently during that time period to warrant an adjustment. Moreover, the Respondent’s representative testified that the property’s 2008 assessment increased over the property’s 2007 assessment, not because of new construction or any other change, but because of the “difference in the trending values.” Potts testimony. Thus, the Board can reasonably conclude that the property’s appraised value in 2008 would require no adjustment to reflect the property’s value in 2007 based on the appraiser’s analysis; or the Board can conclude that the property’s appraised value in 2008 would, in fact, be higher than the property’s value in 2007 based on the Respondent’s trending factor. Either way, the property’s value in 2007 would not exceed the property’s value as reflected in the Petitioner’s 2008 appraisal.
