Both parties agreed the Respondent has the burden of proof in this case... Initially it was Respondent’s burden to prove the 2009 assessment was correct given that the assessment increased by more than 5%. Respondent, however, agreed that the 2009 assessment was excessive and should be reduced to the prior year’s assessed value. Then, because Petitioner requested a lesser value than the prior year’s assessment, it became Petitioner’s burden to establish a lesser amount by making a prima facie case.
Comparing assessments without relating those amounts to actual market value-in-use is not probative. The Petitioner argued that the subject property was assessed in excess of the assessed values of neighboring properties. This argument, however, is insufficient to show an error in an assessment. Westfield Golf Practice Center, LLC v. Washington Township Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007). In Westfield Golf, the Tax Court held that it is not enough for a taxpayer to show that its property is assessed higher than other comparable properties. Id. Instead, the taxpayer must present probative evidence to show that the property’s assessed value does not accurately reflect the property’s market value-in-use. Id. Like the Petitioner in Westfield Golf, the Petitioner here only argued that the method of the Petitioner’s assessment was not uniform or equal.
Petitioner failed in his attempt to make a case based on lack of uniformity and equality. According to the Tax Court, “when a taxpayer challenges the uniformity and equality of his or her assessment one approach that he or she may adopt involves the presentation of assessment ratio studies, which compare the assessed values of properties within an assessing jurisdiction with objectively verifiable data, such as sales prices or market value-in-use appraisals.” Westfield Golf, 859 N.E.2d at 399 n.3. Such studies, however, 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). Such studies must be based on a statistically reliable sample of properties that actually sold. See Bishop v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 743 N.E.2d 810, 813 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (citing Southern Bell Tel. and Tel. Co. v. Markham, 632 So.2d 272, 276 (Fla. Dist. Co. App. 1994). The Petitioner failed to establish that the 13 other assessments it relied on satisfy this requirement.
Petitioner failed to show the comparability of the neighboring properties. By comparing the assessed value of the subject property to the assessed values of comparable properties, the Petitioner essentially relied on a “comparison” method of establishing the market value of its property. In order to effectively use a comparison as evidence in property assessment appeals, however, a party 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. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470. Instead, the party seeking to rely on a comparison approach must explain the characteristics of the subject property and how those characteristics compare to those of purportedly comparable properties. See Id. at 470-71. They must explain how any differences between the properties affect their relative market value-in-use. Here, the Petitioner merely offered a summary sheet and property data cards for each of the properties and testified regarding each assessed value. This falls far short of the showing required to prove the properties are comparable.
Unfortunately, both parties failed to provide the kind of detailed analysis that would assist the Board in reaching a conclusion in this case. The Petitioner did not prove that the value should be any lower.
The assessor admitted the assessment should be reduced to the assessed value of the year before. In this case, doing so will reduce the assessment to $274,900.
