Under the plain language of Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2, the
burden shifts to the assessor when the assessed value of the same property
increases by more than five percent.
Therefore, because the property’s 2008 assessment accounted for the
improvements made to the property; whereas the property was not assessed for those
updates in 2007, the assessor was not assessing the “same property” in 2008 as
he did in 2007. Thus, Indiana Code §
6-1.1-15-17.2 does not apply in this case.
…
Here, the Petitioner’s representative contends that the
assessor erred when he changed the effective age of the building and removed
the 20% obsolescence adjustment from the Petitioner’s property in 2008. Kropp testimony. However, a Petitioner fails to sufficiently
rebut the presumption that an assessment is correct by simply contesting the
method used to compute the assessment.
Eckerling v. Wayne Township Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 678 (Ind. Tax Ct.
2006); P/A Builders & Developers v. Jennings County Assessor, 842 N.E.2d
899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (recognizing that the current assessment system is
a departure from the past practice in Indiana, stating that “under the old
system, a property’s assessed value was correct as long as the assessment
regulations were applied correctly. The
new system, in contrast, shifts the focus from mere methodology to determining
whether the assessed value is actually correct.”). Thus, because the Petitioner’s representative
failed to sufficiently prove the market value-in-use of the subject property,
Mr. Kropp’s contentions that the assessor erred in his method of assessing the
property fails to raise a prima facie case that the Petitioner’s property’s
assessed value should be reduced for the 2008 assessment year.
The Petitioner’s representative also contends that
Petitioner’s property is over-valued based on the assessed value of a
neighboring nursing home. Kropp testimony. In support of this contention, Mr. Kropp
submitted a “Nursing Home QuickCheck Report” from UCompare Health Care website
and property record cards. Petitioner Exhibits
4, 5 and 8. In order to effectively use
the sales comparison approach as evidence in a property assessment appeal,
however, the proponent must establish the comparability of the properties being
examined. Conclusory statements that a property
is “similar” or “comparable” to another property are not probative evidence of
the comparability of the properties.
Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470. Instead,
the party seeking to rely on a sales comparison approach must explain the
characteristics of the subject property and how those characteristics compare
to those of the purportedly comparable properties. Id. at 470-71. They must also explain how any differences between
the properties affect their relative market value-in-use. Id.
Here, the Petitioner’s representative made no attempt to show that the
properties were comparable. He merely
testified that both properties are nursing homes located in the same
neighborhood. This falls short of the
burden to prove that properties are comparable as established by the Indiana
Supreme Court. See e.g. Beyer v. State,
280 N.E.2d 604, 607 (Ind. 1972). Thus,
the Petitioner failed to raise a prima facie case that its property was
over-valued.
To the extent that the Petitioner’s representative can be
seen as arguing that the neighboring nursing home was assessed differently than
the property under appeal, this argument also fails to show an error in the
Petitioner’s property’s assessment. Under
Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-18, a party may introduce evidence of the assessments
of any relevant, comparable property.
Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-18. The determination
of whether properties are comparable, however “shall be made using generally
accepted appraisal and assessment practices.” Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-18. Because the Petitioner’s representative did
not use generally accepted appraisal or assessment practices when comparing the
Petitioner’s property with the neighboring nursing home, the Petitioner’s
representative failed to show any error in the Petitioner’s property’s
assessment.
