Here, the Petitioner’s representative argues that the
Petitioner’s property was assessed too high based on the sale prices of homes
in the neighborhood. For example, Mr. Lach testified, a larger property with
more amenities sold for less than the subject property’s assessed value. In
order to effectively use the sales comparison approach as evidence in property
assessment appeals, however, 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 being examined. Long,
821 N.E.2d at 470. Instead, the party seeking to rely on the sales comparison
approach must explain the characteristics of the subject property and how those
characteristics compare to those of the purportedly comparable properties. See
Id. at 470-71. They must explain how any differences between the properties
affect their relative market value-in-use. Id. Here, the Petitioner’s
representative argues that, based on two sale prices, the subject property was
over-assessed. However, Mr. Lach made little attempt to compare the properties.
He merely testified, for example, that the property that sold for $165,000 was
“larger” than subject property and had “custom tiling.” Similarly, he testified
that the property that sold for $189,000 had a pool and a wrap-around deck, and
amenities such as Corian counters, oak floors, new carpeting and energy
efficient appliances. While Mr. Lach presented some evidence of the comparability
of the two neighboring properties to the subject property, his evidence falls
short of the burden to prove that the subject property’s assessment was
incorrect.
The Petitioner’s representative also contends that the
property was over-assessed because its value is adversely affected by the
high-tension lines and lots that flood in the spring, and modular homes, vacant
properties and parked cars in the neighborhood. Generally, land values in a
given neighborhood are developed by collecting and analyzing comparable sales
data for the neighborhood and surrounding areas. See Talesnick v. State
Board of Tax Commissioners, 693 N.E.2d 657, 659 fn. 5 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
However, properties often possess peculiar attributes that do not allow them to
be grouped with each of the surrounding properties for purposes of valuation.
The term “influence factor” refers to a multiplier “that is applied to the
value of land to account for characteristics of a particular parcel of land
that are peculiar to that parcel.” GUIDELINES, glossary at 10. A Petitioner has
the burden to produce “probative evidence that would support an application of
a negative influence factor and quantification of that influence factor.” See
Talesnick v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 756 N.E.2d 1104, 1108 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 2001). While the Petitioner’s representative testified these conditions
“negatively impact” the market value of the property under appeal, he presented
little evidence of the property’s market value-in-use. The Petitioner therefore
failed to raise a prima facie case that its property’s assessment was too high
in 2010.
Finally, Mr. Lach contends that the Petitioner’s property was
over-valued based on a “general decline” in property values. In support of this
contention, he presented excerpts from several articles regarding the decline
in real estate values nationwide. Mr. Lach also submitted an excerpt from an
article published in the Chesterton Tribune on March 23, 2011, a portion
of an undated article from The Times, two paragraphs titled “Real Estate
Outlook” and two paragraphs from a news article of unknown origin. While the
rules of evidence generally do not apply in the Boards hearings, the Board
requires some evidence of the accuracy and credibility of the evidence. Whitley
Products, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1118
(Ind. Tax Ct. 1998); and Herb v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 656
N.E.2d 890, 893 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995). Here Mr. Lach did not write the articles.
Nor was the author present. Mr. Lach submitted no evidence regarding the
credibility of the data relied upon by the articles’ authors or the accuracy of
the conclusions drawn from the articles. Most importantly, unless the
Petitioner has established the market value of its property at an earlier date,
evidence showing a general decline in property values does little to establish
the property’s market value-in-use for 2010. Therefore, the Board finds the
Petitioner’s argument to be insufficient to support a change in the property’s
assessed value for 2010.
