Monday, October 1, 2012

Board Finds Petitioner's Untimely Appraisal Insufficient to Support a Change in Property's Assessed Value; Nor Did Other Properties' Assessed Values Support Petitioner's Claim


The Petitioner presented an appraisal prepared by Anthony Akins, a licensed Indiana appraiser. The appraiser concluded the property was worth $211,000 as of June 20, 2011. Gentry testimony; Akins Appriasal.

The Akins Appraisal concluded that the market value of the subject property was $211,000 as of June 20, 2011. It also states that “home values in the area appear to be declining based on sales in the township in the past twelve months.” The Akins Appraisal does not indicate how much that decline would have been between March 1, 2010, and June 20, 2011, but the statement is a clear indication that value as of the required date would have been more than $211,000. And the Petitioner failed to otherwise relate the appraised value to a value as of March 1, 2010. Accordingly, the appraisal fails to prove the Petitioner’s case.

The Petitioner also argued that his house is over-valued based on the assessed values of comparable houses in the area. In order to effectively use a comparison approach to value a property, the proponent must establish actual comparability. Conclusory statements that a property is “similar” or “comparable” to another property do not constitute probative evidence of comparability. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470. Instead, comparability must be proved through the characteristics of the subject property and the comparable. How are they the same? How are they different? The Petitioner did not address these questions. Most importantly, one must explain how any differences between the properties affect their relative market values-in-use. See Id. at 470-71. The Petitioner failed to present the facts and analysis that are essential for any conclusion about the value of the subject property based on the purported comparables.

Merely comparing assessments was found to be insufficient to show the Petitioner’s assessment needs to be corrected. Westfield Golf Practice Center, LLC v. Washington Township Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007). It is not enough for a taxpayer to show that its property is assessed for more than other comparable properties. Instead, the taxpayer must present probative evidence to show that the property’s assessed value does not accurately reflect market value-in-use. Id. The Petitioner presented no relevant, probative evidence to show that his assessment did not reflect the market value-in-use of his property.

The Petitioner touched on the issue of uniformity and equality. He attached documents to his Form 131 petition that show differences between assessed value and sale price of the Stuczynski and the Guhl properties. This kind of approach could be significant: a taxpayer may offer ratio studies that compare the assessed values of properties in an assessing jurisdiction with objectively verifiable data, such as sales prices or appraisals. Westfield Golf, 859 N.E.2d at 399 n. 3. But the studies must be prepared according to professionally acceptable standards. See Kemp v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 726 N.E.2d 395, 404 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000). They must be based on a statistically reliable sample. See Bishop v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 743 N.E.2d 810, 813 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001). “A study sample with fewer than five (5) sales shall not be used due [to] its exceptionally poor reliability.” 50 IAC 27-5-3(c). The Petitioner’s sample of two is not sufficient. Furthermore, the Petitioner did not offer or explain these attachments at the hearing. Accordingly, the Board gives the information about the Stuczynski and Guhl properties no weight. See Indianapolis Racquet Club, 802 N.E.2d at 1022.