The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proving that the 2007, 2009, or 2010 assessments should be changed.
a. Real property is assessed based on its "true tax value," which means "the market value-in-use of a property for its current use, as reflected by the utility received by the owner or a similar user, from the property." Ind. Code § 6-1.1-31-6(c); MANUAL at 2. There are three generally accepted techniques to calculate market value-in-use: the cost approach, the sales comparison approach, and the income approach. The primary method for assessing officials to determine market value-in-use is the cost approach. Id. at 3. Indiana has Guidelines that explain the application of the cost approach. The value established by use of the Guidelines, while presumed to be accurate, is merely a starting point. A taxpayer is permitted to offer evidence relevant to market value-in-use to rebut that presumption. Such evidence may include actual construction costs, sales information regarding the subject or comparable properties, appraisals, and any other information compiled in accordance with generally accepted appraisal principles. MANUAL at 5.
b. The Petitioner complained that the PTABOA’s Forms 115 did not include sufficient information to address its issues for each year. The Board’s proceedings, however, are de novo. The Board owes no deference to the PTABOA determination. The PTABOA’s purportedly insufficient or incomplete determination regarding the issues presented on the Form 130 petitions did not hinder the Petitioner’s ability to present relevant evidence and argument about its contentions during the Board’s hearing. See Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-4.
c. The Petitioner’s contentions regarding grade focus solely on the methodology used to assess the property. The Indiana Tax Court has consistently rejected arguments that simply contest the methodology used to compute the assessment. Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 677 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). Instead, a party must show the assessment does not accurately reflect the subject property’s market value-in-use. Id.; see also P/A Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings County Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (The focus is not on the methodology used by the assessor, but instead on determining whether the assessed value is actually correct.)
d. The Petitioner presented no probative evidence about the market value-in-use of its property. Consequently, the Petitioner failed to prove the existing assessed values are wrong or what more accurate assessed values would be.
The Respondent did not prove the 2008 assessment should be maintained or increased.
a. The Respondent attempted to make a case based on the cost approach to value the subject property. But the evidence related to both the cost of the land and the cost of the improvements has significant problems.
b. For the land valuation, the Respondent simply used the average price per acre from the sale of the parent parcel, which was $328,205 per acre. The Respondent concluded that the subject parcel of 1.799 acres would have an identical value per acre, but there was no meaningful comparison of the part of the land that became the subject parcel to the balance of the parent parcel. Unsubstantiated conclusions, however, do not constitute probative evidence. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998). When seeking to establish comparability of land, the relevant characteristics to compare include features such as location, accessibility, and topography. See Blackbird Farms Apts., LP v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 765 N.E.2d 711, 715 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2002) (holding that the taxpayer failed to establish comparability of parcels of land where, among other things, the taxpayer did not compare the topography and accessibility of parcels). The proponent also must explain how any differences between the properties affect their relative market values-in-use. Long at 471. The Respondent failed to provide the required analysis related to her proposed land value.
c. Furthermore, the Respondent simply relied on the building permit that was filed on October 30, 2006. The permit lists the project valuation at $795,000. But when relying on the cost approach to value, the analysis has to provide sufficient information to determine what is and what is not included in the total cost. The Respondent provided only a one line total cost amount with no explanation about specifically what was included. For example, Mr. Surface did not know if soft costs or personal property were included in the building permit amount. Further, nothing in the record established this building permit reflects the final actual cost of the building, which may have differed from the initial estimate listed on the permit. The Respondent failed to prove a credible valuation on the cost basis. Therefore the 2008 assessment must be returned to its 2007 value, which was $1,000,200.
