The Respondent agreed the disputed assessment is more than 5% greater than her 2009 assessment. According to the Respondent, however, the increase is the result of greater percentage of completion so the property assessed in 2010 is not the same property assessed in 2009 and Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 does not apply.
According to the Petitioners, the 2009 assessment and the 2010 assessment are for the same property because the construction did not progress during that time—it had not progressed for approximately ten years.
Undisputed evidence establishes that the partially built addition remains as it was when it was added to the property record card in 2002. It is clear that after the 2010 inspection of the property the Respondent concluded the addition was more complete than previously been determined, but the Respondent failed to present evidence about any specific changes. Therefore, the Board concludes that the 2009 and 2010 assessments are for the same property and Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 dictates that the Respondent has the burden to prove the $127,100 assessment is correct.
[In a footnote, the Board noted: "This situation is substantially different from a case where an assessor previously had been unaware of new construction and added that construction to the assessment upon becoming aware of it."]
Based on estimates that it would take approximately $55,000 to complete the addition, the PTABOA determined the addition was only 64% completed. The PTABOA then assessed the addition as if completed before subtracting $55,000 to adjust for the remaining work to be done. The Respondent failed to present any substantial argument or evidence to establish that this methodology for determining a value conforms to generally accepted appraisal principles. Such calculations and explanations do not help to prove what an accurate market value-in-use might be for the subject property.
Because the Assessor did not offer substantial probative evidence of the market value-in-use, she failed to meet her burden of proof and the assessment reverts to what it was for March 1, 2009, reducing the total assessed value to $95,900.
The Petitioners had the burden of proof for any further reduction and they did not make that case. The Board reaches that conclusion for the following reasons:
The Petitioners paid $30,000 for the original house and spent an additional $30,000 on the addition before halting construction. But they failed to relate these amounts to the required valuation date of March 1, 2010. And they failed to explain how that evidence supports their claim for $91,800.
The addition is unfinished, has condition problems, and lacks many amenities. These things almost certainly would have a negative impact on a potential selling price. But the Petitioners failed to present any probative evidence to quantify that impact or establish what a more accurate number might be. Again, those facts alone do not make a case for any lower assessment.
The Petitioners also argued that their property is over-valued based on the assessed values of other properties in their area. The Petitioners attempted to compare values, but they presented nothing to establish that the neighboring properties actually are comparable to their own. In order to effectively use a comparison approach as evidence, the proponent must establish the comparability of the properties being examined. Conclusory statements that a property is “similar” or “comparable” to another property do not constitute probative evidence of the comparability of the properties. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470. Instead, the party must explain the characteristics of the property and how those characteristics compare to those of purportedly comparable properties. They must also explain how any differences between the properties affect their relative market value-in-use. See Id. at 470-71. Merely comparing assessed values was found to be insufficient to show an error in an assessment in Westfield Golf Practice Center, LLC v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007). ... Consequently, the purported lack of uniformity does not establish a basis for further reduction of the disputed assessment.
