Here, the Trust relied primarily on sales information for
properties located in the subject property’s neighborhood. Of course, sale
prices for other properties do not, by themselves, show the value of a given
property. But when one analyzes those sales prices using generally accepted
appraisal principles, such as the sales-comparison approach, that raw data can
be transformed into a reliable value indicator. See generally, MANUAL at
13-14 (describing the sales-comparison approach).
In order to effectively use a sales-comparison approach as
evidence in an assessment appeal, one must first show that the properties being
examined are comparable to each other. Conclusory statements that a property is
“similar” or “comparable” to another property are not probative of the
properties’ comparability. Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466,
470-471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). Instead, one must identify the characteristics of
the property under appeal and explain how those characteristics compare to the
characteristics of the purportedly comparable properties. Similarly, one must
explain how any differences between the properties affect their relative market
values-in-use. Id.
The Trust did not offer the type of analysis contemplated by
the Indiana Tax Court in Long. At most, Mr. Robinson testified that two
of the homes are bigger than the subject home, and that all three are newer.
But as the Assessor explained, Mr. Robinson ignored other relevant
characteristics, including relevant differences between the properties in
condition, lot size, and amenities.
Even if the Trust had offered a more reasoned analysis of its
purportedly comparable sales, only one sale bears any relationship to the March
1, 2010 valuation date—the second sale of 11028 North Landings Road. The
remaining sales occurred between 21 and 34 months before March 1, 2010. Mr.
Robinson, however, did not even attempt to explain how the sale prices from
2007 and 2008 relate to the subject property’s market value-in-use as of March
1, 2010.
The Trust also claimed that the Assessor erred in assessing
the subject home for a basement when it really sits on a crawl space. But as
the Assessor pointed out, the Trust did not raise that issue in front of the
PTABOA or even on its Form 131 petition to the Board. Although the Assessor did
not use the word “objection,” the record shows that she did not consent to try
that issue. Given the lack of notice to the Assessor, the issue of whether the
home is incorrectly assessed as having a basement is not before the Board.
Nonetheless, in light of the Assessor’s agreement to do so, the Board orders
her to inspect the property to determine if it has a basement or crawl space
and to make corrections if appropriate.
