Because the law applies to all pending appeals and because the
property’s assessed value for 2006 increased by more than 5% over the
property’s assessed value in 2005, the Board finds that the Respondent has the
burden of proof in this proceeding.
Here, the Respondent’s witness offered little evidence to
prove the subject property’s market value-in-use for 2006. According to Mr.
Surface, the Monroe County Equalization Study, conducted after the 2002 general
reassessment, showed commercial and industrial properties were undervalued by
approximately 30%. Surface testimony. Mr. Surface testified that, as a
result of the Equalization Study, instead of applying a trending factor, Monroe
County opted to reevaluate all land values and land base rates. Id. Thus,
the Respondent’s witness contends, the large increase in the Petitioner’s
property’s assessed value between 2005 and 2006 was a result of the county
reviewing sales data, appraisal information, evidence provided in previous
appeals and multiple listing sheets and establishing a new land base rate for
the neighborhood. Id. The Respondent’s witness, however, failed to
present any probative evidence to show how the land base rate was calculated or
that applying the base rate to the Petitioner’s property reflected the
property’s market value-in-use in 2006. Statements that are unsupported by
probative evidence are conclusory and of little value to the Board in making
its determination. 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).
The Respondent’s witness also argues that the Petitioner’s
property’s assessment was valid because the sales ratio study for 2006 fell
within the state requirements for a proper assessment and the DLGF approved the
Respondent’s ratio study. Surface testimony. In addition, the Respondent
argues, other commercial properties in the neighborhood were assessed with the
same land base rate as the Petitioner’s property; thus showing land was
uniformly assessed. Id. The Respondent, however, offered no evidence or
support for the premise that an assessment is correct if properties are
assessed uniformly or that an individual assessment is deemed “correct” so long
as assessments in general are within acceptable statistical ranges for
measuring the overall uniformity, equality, and accuracy of mass appraisals. See
also Canal Square v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 694 N.E.2d 801, 808
(Ind. Tax Ct. Apr. 24, 1998) (in order to carry its burden, the assessor must
do more than merely assert that it assessed the property correctly).
Because the assessor failed to meet its burden of proof, the
subject property’s March 1, 2006, assessment must be reduced to its previous
year’s level of $94,000 for the land and $72,400 for the improvements, for a
total assessed value of $166,400.
