...
The purchase price of the subject property can be a good way to prove market value-in-use (if it is an arm’s-length transaction and if it relates to the relevant valuation date). See Hubler Realty, Inc. v. Hendricks Cty. Ass’r, 938 N.E.2d 311, 314 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010). The Petitioner bought the property in 1998 and spent $45,000 building the residence in 2000, but he failed to establish how that cost relates to the required valuation date for a 2010 assessment or how it supports the proposed assessed value. In this case, the Petitioner’s costs do not help to prove what a more accurate 2010 assessed value might be.
Either party may introduce evidence of the assessments of comparable properties to help accurately determine market value-in-use. The determination of comparability is made using generally accepted appraisal and assessment practices. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-18(c). Accordingly, the proponent must establish the comparability of the properties being examined. Conclusory statements that a property is "similar" or "comparable" to another property do not constitute probative evidence of the comparability of the two properties. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470. The proponent is "responsible for explaining to the Indiana Board the characteristics of their own property, how those characteristics compared to those of the purportedly comparable properties, and how any differences affected the relevant market value-in-use of the properties." Id. at 471. When seeking to establish comparability of land, the relevant characteristics to compare include things such as location, accessibility, and topography. See Blackbird Farms Apts., LP v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 765 N.E.2d 711, 715 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2002). In this appeal, the Petitioner failed to offer a meaningful comparison of the Fisher property to his own. Furthermore, the Petitioner failed to establish that drawing any conclusion about the valuation of the subject property based on evidence of the assessed value of a single property would comply with generally accepted appraisal and assessment practices.
The Petitioner also argued that the value of his property is reduced by its location in a flood plain, building restrictions, the heavy traffic via a gravel road, and the presence of nearby commercial use properties in violation of local zoning ordinances. The Petitioner, however, presented no substantial, probative evidence to quantify the impact of any of these factors on the market value-in-use of his parcel. Unsubstantiated conclusions regarding these negative characteristics do not constitute probative evidence. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998). Even if some or all of these factors have a negative impact on the value of the subject property, the Petitioner failed to make his case by simply contesting the methodology used to compute the assessment. To successfully make his case he needed to show the assessment does not accurately reflect the subject property’s market value-in-use. Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 677 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); see also P/A Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings County Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (explaining the proper focus is not on methodology, but rather on what the correct value actually is).
Finally, the Petitioner discussed the increase in his assessed value from 2007 to 2011. But each tax year stands alone. Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 747 N.E.2d 645, 650 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (citing Glass Wholesalers, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 568 N.E.2d 1116, 1124 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1991)). Evidence of those other assessments does not help to prove what a more accurate valuation might be for 2010.
The Petitioner failed to present probative evidence of his property’s market value-in-use as of March 1, 2010. Therefore, he failed to make a prima facie case.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Irvin_62-003-10-1-5-00013.pdf
