Here, the Respondent presented an appraisal prepared by a licensed certified appraiser who testified that she prepared the appraisal in accordance with USPAP. The appraiser estimated the value of the property to be $328,000 as of January 1, 2008 – which is the proper valuation date for the March 1, 2009, assessment date. An appraisal prepared according to USPAP will often be probative of a property’s value. See Kooshtard Property VI, LLC, 836 N.E.2d at 506 n.6. The Respondent, therefore, raised a prima facie case that the subject property’s value was $328,000 for the 2009 assessment year.
Once
the Respondent established a prima facie case, the burden shifted to the
Petitioner. The Petitioner’s counsel
argued that the Petitioner’s use of the property was motivated by non-market
factors, similar to a farming lifestyle, because she continued to use it for
her minimal house, rather than sell the property. The Petitioner’s counsel
relies upon an excerpt from the 2002 Real Property Assessment Manual which
states, “In markets in which sales are not representative of utilities, either
because the utility derived is higher than indicated sale prices, or in markets
where owners are motivated by non-market factors, such as the maintenance of a
farming lifestyle even in the face of a higher value use for some other
purpose, true tax value will not equal value in exchange.” MANUAL at 2. The
Manual, however, continues with “In markets where there are regular exchanges,
so that ask and offer prices converge, true tax value will equal value in
exchange, except for owner occupied housing units, where true tax value will be
equal to the value in exchange.” MANUAL at 2.
The
Petitioner’s property is an owner-occupied property. The evidence shows that
the Petitioner’s house is located in a market with regular exchanges of
property and that buyers and sellers use their properties for the same
residential use. However, even if the Board accepted Petitioner’s counsel’s
argument that the Petitioner may be motivated by non-market factors, the
Petitioner failed to show what effect the Petitioner’s motivation would have on
the market value of the property. A Petitioner fails to sufficiently rebut the
presumption that an assessment is correct by simply contesting the method the
assessor used to compute the assessment. Eckerling v. Wayne Township
Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 678 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); P/A Builders &
Developers v. Jennings County Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct.
2006) (recognizing that the current assessment system is a departure from the
past practice in Indiana, stating that “under the old system, a property’s
assessed value was correct as long as the assessment regulations were applied
correctly. The new system, in contrast, shifts the focus from mere methodology
to determining whether the assessed value is actually correct”).
The
Petitioner’s counsel also submitted several calculations for neighboring
properties showing the ratio of assessed land value land to assessed
improvement value, the ratio of the assessed value of the improvements to the
assessed value of the land, and the ratio of the assessed value of the land to
the total assessed value. Mr. Davis calculated the average land to improvement
ratio and applied that ratio to the subject property, which resulted in a land
value of $143,389. However, the Petitioner’s counsel presented no authority
that recognized this as an acceptable method of appraising or assessing
residential properties, or, in fact, any property.
To
the extent that the Petitioner was attempting to establish that the assessor
assessed the subject property differently than she assessed comparable
properties, this argument also fails. 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. “The determination
of whether properties are comparable shall be made using generally accepted
appraisal and assessment practices.” Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-18. Here, however,
the property record cards in evidence show that the land was assessed at the
same base rate per front foot for the subject property and for the five
neighboring properties. Moreover, the improvements on the five neighboring
properties varied widely in size, age and amenities and the Petitioner made no
attempt to show how the properties were comparable to the subject property.
Thus, the Petitioner failed to rebut the Respondent’s prima facie case with
evidence relating to the assessed values of other properties in the area.
