The Petitioners first contend that their property was over-valued for 2010 based on their purchase of the subject property for $10 on June 30, 2004. Nickell testimony; Petitioner Exhibit 9. 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 Petitioners, however, bought the subject property almost six years prior to the relevant March, 1, 2010, valuation date. The Petitioners needed to explain how the sale price related to the subject property’s value as of March 1, 2010. The Petitioners failed to relate their June 30, 2004, purchase price to the March 1, 2010, valuation date, and the purchase of the property alone is insufficient to prove that his property was over-valued for the 2010 assessment year. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471.
Furthermore, even if the Petitioners had related the purchase price to the relevant valuation date, the Board doubts that the Petitioners purchase amount was a reliable indicator of the subject property’s market value-in-use. As explained in the Manual, market value is:
“The most probable price (in terms of money) which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowledgably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
The buyer and seller are typically motivated;
Both parties are well informed and advised and act in what they consider their best interests;
A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
Payment is made in terms of cash or in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto;
The price is unaffected by special financing or concessions.”
MANUAL at 10.
Here, it is questionable whether the buyer and seller were typically motivated, since it appears that the subject property was overlooked in the sale of the main property, and the previous owner simply wanted the Petitioners to take it over. More importantly, the subject property was not exposed to the open market. Thus, even without the valuation date disparity, the Board would not view the Petitioners’ purchase price as a reliable indicator of the subject property’s market value-in-use.
The Petitioners further argue that a 90% influence factor for restrictions should be applied to the subject property. Nickell testimony; Petitioner Exhibit 2. An “influence factor” is a multiplier “that is applied to the value of land to account for characteristics of a particular parcel of land that are peculiar to that parcel.” GUIDELINES, glossary at 10; see also, GUIDELINES, ch. 2 at 56. Both parties agree that the subject property is in fact peculiar; however, the Petitioners needed to go one step further to make a prima facie case—they needed to offer probative, market-based evidence as to what a more accurate valuation would be. Talesnick v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 756 N.E.2d 1104, 1108 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001).
