On appeal, MHPI contends that the Indiana Board’s final determination must be reversed for two alternative reasons. First, MHPI claims that the Indiana Board’s final determination is contrary to law because it utilized an improper framework in reviewing its property tax appeal. Alternatively, MHPI claims that the Indiana Board should have completely rejected or significantly discounted the Assessor’s December 2004 sales evidence because MHPI demonstrated that it never would have paid over $4.2 million for the property had it known that Indiana’s re-trending process would cause the property taxes to "sky rocket." (See Pet’r Reply Br. at 5-6; Pet’r Br. at 10-12.)
I.
A final determination of the Indiana Board is contrary to law if it violates any statute, constitutional provision, legal principle, or rule of substantive or procedural law. See John Malone Enter., Inc. v. Schaeffer, 674 N.E.2d 599, 606 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). MHPI maintains on appeal that the Indiana Board, in evaluating the record evidence, violated its own standard of review because it did not determine whether MHPI made a prima facie case or whether the Assessor rebutted its prima facie case. (See Pet’r Reply Br. at 1-2.) MHPI is incorrect.
A petitioner makes a prima facie case during the administrative hearing process when it submits evidence that is "sufficient to establish a given fact and which, if not contradicted, remains sufficient." See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 468 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (citation omitted), review denied. The respondent must then rebut the petitioner’s prima facie case to prevail. See id. While the Indiana Board’s final determination does not explicitly state that MHPI made a prima facie case or that the Assessor rebutted MHPI’s prima facie case, the Indiana Board’s final determination implicitly indicates that it reached those conclusions. Indeed, the Indiana Board explained that because the parties presented conflicting evidence regarding the value of MHPI’s mobile home park, it needed to weigh the evidence and determine which was most persuasive and reliable. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 105.) After analyzing the evidence, the Indiana Board then explained why it found the Assessor’s overall evidentiary presentation more persuasive than MHPI’s evidentiary presentation. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 105-09.) Accordingly, the Indiana Board did not violate its own standard of review in reviewing MHPI’s appeal and, therefore, the Court concludes that MHPI has not shown that the Indiana Board’s final determination is contrary to law.
II.
The next issue before the Court is whether the Indiana Board’s determination that the December 2004 sales evidence was probative as to the market value-in-use of MHPI’s property is arbitrary, capricious, or not based on substantial evidence. Probative evidence is "evidence sufficient to establish a given fact that, if not contradicted, will remain sufficient." Meadowbrook N. Apts. v. Conner, 854 N.E.2d 950, 953 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (citation omitted). Indiana’s assessment manual provides that a taxpayer may rebut the presumption of correctness afforded to assessments through the presentation of sales information regarding the subject or comparable properties. 2002 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL (2004 Reprint) (hereinafter "Manual") (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.3-1-2 (2002 Supp.)) at 5. Conversely, an assessing official may also support the correctness of an assessment through the presentation of such evidence. See Kooshtard Prop. VI, LLC v. White River Twp. Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 501, 506 n.6 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005), review denied.
The administrative record reveals that the manufactured home market was robust between 2004 and 2005. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 456, 463, 473-74, 497.) In fact, the market was characterized as one in which investor demand routinely outweighed supply. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 473-74, 497.) The demand for such property did not begin to decrease until 2008. (Cert. Admin. R. at 190.) MHPI purchased the mobile home park in an arm’s length transaction in December 2004 for just over $4.2 million. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 300-01.) Furthermore, despite the imminence of Indiana’s re-trending process that required assessing officials to adjust real property assessments to reflect the six-year difference in effective valuation dates, MHPI assumed, when it purchased the property, that its assessment and associated property tax liability
would remain relatively constant. (See Pet’r Br. at 10-12 (footnote added).) See also IND. CODE § 6-1.1-4-4.5 (2006) (amended 2009); Manual at 2; 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 21-3-3-3(a)-(b) (2006) (see http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac). MHPI’s incorrect assumption cannot dispel the record evidence, which not only indicates that the December 2004 sales evidence reflected both the robustness and stability of the manufactured home market for the 2006 tax year, but also shows what MHPI believed the property to be worth at the time of purchase. Accordingly, while MHPI’s current complaints regarding its "sky rocketing" property taxes are indicative of buyer’s remorse, they do not require the complete rejection or substantial discounting of the December 2004 sales evidence. Consequently, the Court must conclude that the Indiana Board did not abuse its discretion in either considering that the December 2004 sales evidence or in finding it probative as to the mobile home park’s market value-in-use for the 2006 tax year.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11051202tgf.pdf
