Here,
the Petitioners’ representative argued that the Petitioners’ land was
over-valued for 2010 and 2011 based on sales of other properties on the
channels attached to Lake of the Woods. In making this argument, the
Petitioners’ representative essentially relies on a sales comparison approach
to establish the market value-in-use of the property. See MANUAL at 3
(stating that the sales comparison approach “estimates the total value of the
property directly by comparing it to similar, or comparable, properties that
have sold in the market.”) In order to effectively use the sales comparison
approach as evidence in a property assessment appeal, however, 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 v. Wayne Township Assessor, 821
N.E.2d 466, 470 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). Instead, the proponent must identify the
characteristics of the subject property 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.
In
support of her argument, Ms. LeVeque submitted sales information for ten
channel properties that sold between 2004 and 2011, which ranged in value from
$250 to $764 per front foot. Based on the sales, the Petitioners’
representative contends the subject property’s land should be valued at $450 a
front foot, resulting in an assessed value of $31,500 for the land on both
parcels for 2010 and 2011. Ms. LeVeque later asked for $550 a front foot or
$38,500 for both parcels. The Petitioners’ representative, however, made no
attempt to show how the properties were similar or how the properties differed.
Ms. LeVeque only testified that her sales were all channel properties. But whether
properties are similar enough to be considered “comparable” depends on a number
of factors including the size, shape, topography, accessibility and use of the
properties. See Beyer v. State, 280 N.E.2d 604, 607 (Ind. 1972) (“One
need only examine the multitudinous factors which make separate tracts of land
similar or dissimilar to realize that the variation in the character of land is
limitless. No two tracts of land are identical”).
Even
if Ms. LeVeque had sufficiently shown that her sales were comparable to the
subject properties, the bulk of her “comparable” sales were too remote from the
assessment dates to be probative of the properties’ values for the purpose of
the Petitioners’ appeals. Here, eight of the ten sales that Ms. LeVeque offered
to prove the Petitioners’ properties’ values for 2010 and 2011 occurred between
2004 and 2007. However, 50 IAC 27-3-2 states that “county assessors shall use
sales of properties occurring after January 1, of the calendar year immediately
preceding the March 1 assessment date in performing value calibration analysis
and sales ratio studies under this article for the county. For example, sales
beginning on January 1, 2009, shall be used for the March 1, 2010, assessment.”
Because the Petitioners’ representative made no attempt to relate the various
sale prices to the subject properties’ market value-in-use as of the proper
valuation date, Ms. LeVeque’s comparable sales have little probative value. And
of the two sales that were within the relevant time period, Ms. Relos’
unrebutted testimony was that Parcel No. 50-43-06-000-073.000-005 on East Shore
Drive was sold to an adjacent property owner. And while Parcel No.
50-43-07-000-108.000-005 on Pleasant Point Lane sold for $75,400, or $673 per
front foot, the Respondent’s evidence shows that the sale equated to $7.13 per
square foot while the Petitioners’ properties were assessed for $4.91 per
square foot for 2010 and $7.00 per square foot for 2011. Thus, the Petitioners’
evidence fails to sufficiently show that their two lots were over-valued either
for the 2010 or 2011 assessment years.
