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. Whitely 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).
Finally, Mr. Surface argues that the Petitioner’s property was
properly assessed in 2006 for $164,300, based on the property’s 2011 listing
price. Surface testimony. Mr. Surface submitted a multiple listing sheet
showing the property under appeal was listed for sale with Stith Commercial
Broker for $250,000 on October 26, 2011. Id.; Respondent Exhibit H. He
also presented the assessed value of four properties located in the
Petitioner’s neighborhood to show that property values in the area have
remained relatively constant from 2005 through 2011. Id.; Respondent Exhibit
G.
“True tax value may be
thought of as the ask price of property by its owner, because this value more
clearly represents the utility obtained from the property, and the ask price
represents how much utility must be replaced to induce the owner to abandon the
property.” MANUAL at 2. Thus, when reasonable marketing efforts are made to
sell a property at a given price for a period of time and those efforts are
unsuccessful, it can be inferred that the market value-in-use of a property is
something less than its asking price. For the March 1, 2006, assessment, the
valuation date was January 1, 2005. 50 IAC 21-3-3. Here, the Respondent’s
evidence shows that the property under appeal was listed for sale on October
26, 2011, for $250,000.
Mr. Surface argues that, because property values have remained
“relatively constant” in the Petitioner’s neighborhood from 2005 through 2011,
the Petitioner’s current listing price of $250,000 shows that Petitioner’s
property was not over-assessed in 2006 at $164,300. Surface testimony. However
the fact that the Petitioner listed his property for sale in 2011 for $250,000
is not probative evidence of the Petitioner’s assessed value in 2006.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s witness’ conclusory testimony that the assessed
values of the properties in the neighborhood have remained relatively constant
and therefore support the Petitioner’s assessed value was not supported by any
substantial facts or authorities and it is not probative evidence. Whitely
Products, Inc., N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998). Thus, the Board
cannot reasonably conclude that the property’s 2011 listing price or the
neighboring properties’ assessed values show the Petitioner’s 2006 assessed
value is correct.
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 $59,900 for the land and $62,800 for the improvements, for a
total assessed value of $122,700.
