Turning to the case at hand, both parties agree the Respondent has the burden of proof. The Respondent, therefore, had the burden of proving the March 1, 2006, assessment is correct.
…
Ms. Gaiter claimed the subject property was assessed using the same trending factors as the other properties in subject neighborhood. This assertion is not helpful in determining the subject property’s market value-in-use as of the valuation date of January 1, 2005.
Ms. Gaiter complained the burden of proof was on the Assessor due to a technicality. Actually, the burden of proof lies with Ms. Gaiter due to change in the Indiana Code. See ¶12 above.
Ms. Gaiter avowed she did not bring any evidence that would help support the 2006 assessment. Ms. Gaiter’s de minimis evidence is not sufficient to make a prima facie case.
The Respondent did not support the accuracy of the existing assessment with any meaningful market value-in-use evidence.
Since the Respondent failed to provide probative evidence that the current assessment is correct, the Petitioner’s duty to provide substantial evidence to support a more accurate assessment is not triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003); Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113,1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998)
In other cases where the Respondent had the burden to prove the assessment is correct and the Respondent failed to carry that burden, the Board has ordered that the assessment be returned to the assessed value of the year before. In this case doing so reduces the assessment to $109,000.
