Here, the parties agreed that
the subject property’s assessment increased more than 5% between March 1, 2007
and March 1, 2008. The Assessor, therefore, has the burden of proving the
assessment was correct. To the extent that the Petitioners seek an assessment
below the previous year’s level; however, the Petitioners have the burden of
proving a lower value for their property.
…
The Respondent
contends that the subject property’s 2008 assessment should be higher than the
previous assessment of $553,700. Agostino argument. In support of this
contention, the Respondent presented a Sales Comparison Report, prepared by Mr.
Reed, using Pro Val information. Respondent Exhibit 1. The Respondent
also presented a MLS Sales Report. Respondent Exhibit 2. The
sales-comparison approach is a generally accepted appraisal methodology that
“estimates the total value of [a given] property directly by comparing it to
similar, or comparable, properties that have sold in the market.” MANUAL at 3. In order to effectively use a sales-comparison
analysis as evidence in a property assessment appeal, however, the proponent
must show that the properties on which that analysis is based are truly
comparable to the property under appeal. Conclusory statements that a property
is “similar” or “comparable” to another property do not suffice. Long v.
Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d at 470 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). Instead, the
proponent must identify the appealed property’s characteristics and explain how
those characteristics compare to the characteristics of the purportedly
comparable properties. Id. at 471. Similarly, the proponent must explain
how any differences between the properties affect their relative market
values-in-use. Id.
The
Respondent’s Sales Comparison Report did not meet the threshold requirements
for the analyses to carry probative weight. Mr. Reed examined five properties
in the Sales Comparison Report that were comparable in some aspects to the
subject property. For example, Mr. Reed compared the land, bedrooms, bathrooms,
square footages, year built, garages, decks, and basements. Mr. Reed also made
adjustments to account for differences in those characteristics. However, he
did not establish how he determined the amounts for those adjustments.
While the
adjustments in the Respondent’s Sales Comparison Report may not differ
significantly from those made by a certified appraiser in an appraisal report,
the appraiser’s assertions are backed by his education, training, and
experience. The appraiser also typically certifies that he complied with USPAP.
Thus, the Board, as the trier-of-fact, can infer that the appraiser used
objective date, where available, to quantify his adjustments. Where objective
data was not available, the Board can then infer that the appraiser relied on
his education, training, and experience to estimate a reliable quantification.
Here, there is no evidence that Mr. Reed is a certified appraiser. Moreover,
Mr. Reed did not certify that he complied with USPAP in performing his
analysis. The Board therefore finds that the Sales Comparison Report is
insufficiently reliable to be probative of the property’s market value-in-use.
The
Respondent’s MLS Sales Report also did not meet the threshold requirements for
the analyses to carry any probative weight. In fact, the Respondent did not
make any adjustments at all to the purported comparable properties in that
analysis. Thus, this also falls short of the burden to show comparability
between the properties.
The Respondent
failed to establish a prima facie case that the property’s assessed value was
correct for the March 1, 2008, assessment date. In other cases where the
Respondent had 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 would
reduce the assessment to $553,700 which is less than the Petitioners requested
on their Form 131. The Petitioners claimed a total assessment of $577,900; with
$22,700 for land and $555,200 for improvements. In other cases the Board has
determined that it will not reduce the assessment to less than what a
Petitioner requested. See Castleman v. Steuben Co. Assessor, Petition
No. 76-006-08-1-5-00001 (IBTR decision issued Feb. 6, 2012). A similar
conclusion is appropriate here.
