Turning to the case at hand, both parties agree the 2011 assessment under appeal increased over 5% from the 2010 assessment. They further agree the Respondent has the burden of proof.
Mr. McDavid testified that he
made a site visit on April 22, 2010, to pick up an addition to the residence.
He failed to point out or explain to what extent the addition made the property
different or how it affected the true tax value of the property. This
information could have been important in determining which party had the burden
of proof had it been provided. I. C. § 6-1.1-15-17 states the 5% increase from
year to year is compared to the same property. I. C. § 6-1.1-15-17 would
not apply to a property that had been sufficiently changed. The Respondent,
therefore, has the burden of proving that the subject’s March 1, 2011,
assessment is correct.
…
As stated
above, Mr. McDavid testified that he made a site visit on April 22, 2010, to
pick up an addition to the residence. He failed to explain how the value he
arrived at after the visit demonstrates the current assessment is an accurate
market value-in-use.
Mr. McDavid
claimed the Petitioner presented no evidence to justify a change in the
assessment, and therefore, the PTABOA made no change to the assessment. Again,
this is not probative evidence to support the contention that current
assessment is an accurate market value-in-use.
Mr. McDavid
asserted the Petitioner contacted him by phone on July 17, 2012, to agree with
the changes in the assessment that decreased the assessment to $308,500. He
also stated he mailed Mr. Whipp a Form 11 with the $308,500 assessment shown on
it. The Form 11 is dated September 17, 2012. Mr. Whipp’s petition to the Board
is dated November 21, 2011. Mr. Whipp testified he did not withdraw his
petition to the Board at any time. There is nothing in the record, with the
exception of Mr. McDavid’s testimony which Mr. Whipp rebutted, that supports
the allegation that Mr. Whipp agreed to the amount of $308,500 as suggested by
the Respondent. The Board did not receive notice from Mr. Whipp that he wanted
to withdrawal his petition.
The Petitioner
presented several properties he claimed had sold with the exception of one,
from values of $110,000 to $193,000. The sale dates range from May 27, 2011 to
June 28, 2012. While the Petitioner brought out a few isolated facts about how
the subject property and the sold properties compared to one another, the
Petitioner failed to provide the kind of detailed facts and analysis that would
be required to establish how the value-in-use of the properties truly compares.
A party is responsible for explaining the characteristics of the subject
property, how those characteristics compared to those of the purportedly
comparable property, and how any differences affected the relevant market
values-in-use of the properties. Without sufficient, meaningful facts and
analysis, conclusory comparisons are not probative evidence. See Long,
821 N.E.2d at 470-471; Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan v. Jennings Co.
Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 1075, 1082 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). The Petitioner did not
provide a prima facie case to support his contended value.
…
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 $239,800.
To the extent
that the Petitioner sought an even lower assessed value, he had the burden to
prove it. He did not do so. His evidence regarding the alleged comparables and
his interpretation of the income approach were not probative and did not
support his request to lower the assessment to $190,347.
