Here, the Petitioner offered an appraisal signed by Michael R. Falcone that estimated the value of the Petitioner’s property to be $9,000.00 as of November 17, 2010. Petitioner exhibit 2C. Mr. Falcone is an Indiana certified appraiser who attested that he prepared the Petitioner’s appraisal in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Id. The report shows that the appraiser applied the sales comparison approach in estimating the property’s value. Id.
While generally the 2009 assessment is to reflect the value of a property as of January 1, 2008, pursuant to 50 IAC 21-3-3(a), “For assessment years occurring March 1, 2007, and thereafter, the local assessing official shall use sales of properties occurring the two (2) calendar years preceding the relevant assessment date.” According to the appraisal offered by the Petitioner: “An extensive search for sales of vacant land in the area over the past several years was conducted, and it was found that the market has been stagnant with very limited sales activity.” Petitioner Exhibit 2C. In fact, the appraiser noted: “The properties used in the sales comparison are the most recent, proximate and best available. There are no Date of Sale/Time adjustments because the market has been stagnant and there is insufficient data to suggest a positive or negative adjustment.” Id. Thus, the Board finds that the Petitioner’s November 17, 2010, appraisal has sufficient probative value to raise a prima facie case that its property was over-valued for the March 1, 2009, assessment.
Once the Petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the assessing official to rebut the Petitioner’s evidence. See American United Life Insurance Co. v. Maley, 803 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004). To rebut or impeach the Petitioner’s case, the Respondent has the same burden to present probative evidence that the Petitioner faced to raise its prima facie case. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan v. Jennings County Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 1075, 1082 (Ind. Tax Court 2005). Here the Respondent argued that the valuation date on the Petitioner’s appraisal was November 17, 2010; while the assessment year under appeal is 2009. However, as the Board found above, because the appraiser used properties that “were the most recent, proximate and the best available,” and made no time adjustments to those sales because the market was “stagnant,” the Petitioner’s appraisal was sufficient to raise a prima facie case that its property was over-valued.
The Respondent presented no valuation evidence of its own. The Board therefore finds that the Respondent failed to rebut or impeach the Petitioner’s evidence.
