The Petitioner first contends that his property was over-valued for 2006 based on his purchase of the property for $23,000 on October 19, 2007. Anderston testimony; Petitioner Exhibits 1 and 2. The sale of the subject property is often the best evidence of the property’s value. See Hubler Realty Co. v. Hendricks County Assessor, 938 N.E.2d 311, 315 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010) (finding that the Board’s determination assigning greater weight to the property’s purchase price than its appraised value was proper and supported by the evidence). The Petitioner, however, bought the subject property almost three years after the relevant January 1, 2005, valuation date. Mr. Anderson needed to explain how the sale price related to the property’s value as of January 1, 2005. And because Mr. Anderson failed to relate his October 19, 2007, purchase price to the January 1, 2005, valuation date, the purchase of the property alone is insufficient to prove that his property was over-valued for the 2006 assessment year. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471.
The Petitioner also contends that the assessed value of his property was excessive compared to the sale prices of other properties in the neighborhood. Anderson testimony. According to Mr. Anderson, the Respondent’s comparable properties were newer houses on larger lots, but the comparable properties sold on average for $52.20 per square foot; whereas the subject property was assessed for $82.39 per square foot. Id.; Petitioner Exhibit 11A. However, the Petitioner based his calculations for the subject property on 704 square feet of living area when, in fact, the photographs and the property record card indicate the property is a 1¾ -story house. Respondent Exhibit4 and 6. The MLS Listing Sheet for the property also shows that the Petitioner’s home has 1,408 square feet of living area; rather than the 704 square feet of living area that the Petitioner claims. Petitioner Exhibit 2. Therefore, contrary to the Petitioner’s arguments, the subject property is assessed for only $41.19 per square foot – which is substantially lower than the sale prices of the Respondent’s “comparable” properties on a square foot basis. Thus, this claim also fails to support a reduction in the property’s assessed value for 2006.
