Here, there is no dispute that the Petitioners purchased the property for $7,511. Furthermore, the record contains no evidence that the sale was anything but an arms-length transaction. In fact, the letter from the Town of Culver states that the property was advertised for bids and the bid opening would take place on March 9, 2010, which is the same date that the town received two appraisals valuing the property at $7,000 and $7,500, respectively. 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 submitted a bid within days of the relevant valuation date and the county issued a deed on the property on June 9, 2010 – which is only three months after the assessment date. Thus, the Petitioners’ purchase of the property is sufficiently timely to show that the property was over-valued for 2010 and the Petitioners raised a prima facie case that their purchase price is a more accurate market value-in-use for the property’s 2010 assessment.
Once the Petitioners raised a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the Respondent. To rebut or impeach Petitioners’ case, the Respondent has the same burden to present probative evidence that the Petitioners faced to raise their prima facie case. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan v. Jennings County Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 1075, 1082 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005).
Here, the Respondent submitted sales and assessment information for three waterfront properties that sold in 2009 and 2010 to support the $13,513 base rate used to assess the Petitioners’ parcel. Respondent Exhibits 11 – 13. Each property record card showed that land in the Petitioners’ property’s neighborhood was assessed for $13,513 per foot of frontage on the lake. Id. Pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-18(c), “To accurately determine market-value-in-use, a taxpayer or an assessing official may … introduce evidence of the assessments of comparable properties located in the same taxing district or within two (2) miles of a boundary of the taxing district…” Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-18. In addition, the sale price of each property supports the assessed value of the properties. However, the “determination of whether properties are comparable shall be made using generally accepted appraisal and assessment practices.” Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-18. While the Respondent has sufficiently shown that lakefront properties in the Petitioners’ neighborhood are assessed at the same rate, Ms. Dunning presented no evidence that the Petitioners’ “rear lot” was comparable to a lake front parcel. And she presented no evidence that other “rear lots” were assessed comparably with the subject property.
The Respondent also contends that the subject property adds more value to the Petitioners’ adjacent homesite than the property would bring in an isolated sale. And that may be true. However, the Respondent failed to present any evidence of the value of the property as a whole. Statements that are unsupported by probative evidence are conclusory and of little value to the Board in making its determination. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998); and Herb v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 656 N.E.2d 890, 893 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995). Thus, the Respondent’s evidence fails to rebut the Petitioners’ prima facie case.
Finally, while the Respondent gave a detailed explanation as to how she calculated the value of the subject property as a “rear lot,” it is not sufficient to show that she assessed the property correctly. See Canal Square v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 694 N.E.d2d 801, 808 (Ind. Tax Ct. Apr. 24, 1998) (mere recitation of expertise is insufficient to rebut prima facie case). Here the Petitioners presented probative market evidence to support a lower assessed value. Therefore, the Respondent must have presented more persuasive valuation evidence to show that the property’s assessment reflected the property’s market value-in-use in order to prevail.
