The Petitioner’s representative generally claims that the subject property’s land value was assessed too high in 2008 and 2009 compared to other parcels in his area. In support of his contentions, Mr. Smith submitted “Property Assessment Detail Reports” which provide a total assessed value of the land and the improvements for each of seven other properties in the area of the Petitioner’s property. From those reports, Mr. Smith calculated the assessed value per square foot of each lot. Mr. Smith also provided a map to show where the lots were located in relation to the subject property.
Pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-18(c), “To accurately determine market-value-in-use, a taxpayer or an assessing official may … introduce evidence of the assessments of comparable properties located in the same taxing district or within two (2) miles of a boundary of the taxing district…” Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-18. The statute states that “the determination of whether properties are comparable shall be made using generally accepted appraisal and assessment practices.” Id.
To compare the assessed values of comparable properties, however, at a minimum the proponent must provide property record cards to show how the various properties were assessed in the years at issue. Here, the Petitioners provided no such data. The Petitioner’s “Property Assessment Detail Reports” are not the kind of report that would allow the Board to determine how a property was assessed and whether the subject property was assessed differently. While Mr. Smith calculated some of the Petitioner’s comparable properties to have a land value below the value he calculated for the subject property, Mr. Smith failed to present any evidence to show what base rate was applied to each parcel and what adjustments were applied to that base rate for each property. Thus, the Board has no means of comparing the Petitioner’s land assessment to the land assessments on the other properties that Mr. Smith argues are comparable. Moreover, contrary to Mr. Smith’s arguments, the Respondent’s evidence shows that another similarly situated corner lot in the Petitioner’s property’s neighborhood was assessed at the same base rate as the Petitioner’s property and received the same 100% influence factor for its location.
To the extent that the Petitioner’s representative argues that its property should not have had an influence factor applied to the land based on the property’s market value, the Board notes that the Petitioner’s representative failed to provide any market evidence of the property’s value. He merely alleged that the county assessor should remove the 100% positive influence factor applied to the Petitioner’s land. Thus, the Petitioner’s representative failed to raise prima facie case that the Petitioner’s property’s land was over-valued for the 2008 and 2009 assessment years.
Where the Petitioner’s representative has not supported the Petitioner’s claim with probative evidence, the Respondent’s duty to support the assessment with substantial evidence is not triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Department of Local Government Finance, 799 N.E.2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003).
