There is no dispute that the subject property’s assessment
more than doubled, going from $38,200 in 2009 to $76,800 in 2010. See 2010
Form 11, Notice of Assessment of Land and Structures, Pet’rs Ex. 3C. But
the parties also agree that the Olivers significantly restored and remodeled
the home between 2009 and 2010 after it was damaged by severe flooding. Thus,
the 2010 assessment was not “for the same property” that was assessed in 2009,
and the burden of proof remains with the Olivers.
…
Here, the Olivers claim that the Assessor mislabeled their
elevated foundation as a basement, which led her to over-assess the property.
In other words, the Olivers question the Assessor’s methodology in computing
the assessment. A taxpayer, however, does not rebut the presumption that an
assessment is correct simply by contesting the assessor’s methodology in
computing the assessment. See Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 841
N.E.2d 674, 678 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). Instead, the taxpayer normally must use
the type of market-based evidence described in the Manual to show that the
assessor’s methodology yielded an assessment that does not accurately reflect
the assessed property’s market value in-use. Id.
The Olivers offered no such market-based evidence either to
quantify the difference in value between a basement and an enclosed foundation
or to show the property’s value as a whole. And the Olivers’ claims regarding
the Assessor’s pricing of the home’s decks and concrete slab lack probative
value for similar reasons.
Because the Olivers did not offer probative evidence of the
subject property’s market value-in-use, they failed to make a prima facie case
for reducing the property’s assessment.
