The Hales generally claimed that the subject parcels were assessed too high in comparison to other land assessments in their immediate area. They did not specify whether they are claiming other assessments show the subject parcels are assessed for more than their market value-in-use, or the assessments are not uniform and equal. Either way, the evidence does not make a prima facie case. It is not enough for a taxpayer to show that its property is assessed higher than other comparable properties. Instead, the taxpayer must present probative evidence to show that the assessed value does not accurately reflect market value-in-use. Westfield Golf Practice Center, LLC v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007).
The Hales offered no probative evidence that their current assessments do not reflect market value-in-use. Their comparison with other assessments does not support any conclusion about what a more accurate market value-in-use for the subject parcels might be. Even if one assumes that information about other assessments can demonstrate market value-in-use, the party offering that evidence would need to prove the similarities of the properties and establish how any differences affect their relative values. See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d at 470-71 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). The same is true for a claim that properties are not assessed in a uniform and equal manner.
The Hales bought the parcels in 1999 and received an offer for one of those parcels approximately six years ago. But they provided no specifics about purchase prices or the amount of the offer. This kind of evidence does not help to prove what a more accurate assessment might be.
The dock situation probably has a negative impact on potential selling price. But merely establishing the existence of the problem is not enough to require changing the assessments. To make a case, the Hales were required to offer probative evidence as to what a more accurate valuation would be. See Talesnick v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 756 N.E.2d 1104, 1108 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001). They offered no such proof. Consequently, they did not make a prima facie case for reducing the assessments.
