Indiana assesses real property based on its true tax value, which the 2002 Real Property Assessment Manual defines as “the market value-in-use of a property for its current use, as reflected by the utility received by the owner or a similar user, from the property.” 2002 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL 5 (incorporated by reference at 50 IAC 2.3-1-2 (2009)). A party’s evidence in a tax appeal must therefore be consistent with that standard. See id. For example, a market value-in-use appraisal prepared according to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice often will be probative. Kooshtard Property VI, LLC v. White River Township Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 501, 506 n. 6 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). A taxpayer may also offer actual construction costs, sales information for the subject property or comparable properties, and any other information compiled according to generally accepted appraisal principles. MANUAL at 5.
Here,
the Davises offered none of the types of evidence that the Manual contemplates.
Instead, Mr. Davis claimed that the subject parcel was assessed too high in
light of the facts that it is too small for a septic system and therefore
cannot be built upon, and that neighborhood property values were decreasing.
Regarding
the first claim, Mr. Davis did not offer a copy of any ordinance or regulation
restricting the installation of septic systems to parcels containing at least
five acres. He instead pointed to a conversation with an unidentified employee
of the Delaware County Health Department. Regardless, while such a restriction
might affect the subject parcel’s value, the restriction, by itself, does
little to prove a particular value or range of values. To make a prima case for
reducing the subject parcel’s assessment, the Davises needed to offer probative
evidence as to what a more accurate valuation would be.
The
same is true for Mr. Davis’s testimony about the empty homes in the Davises’
neighborhood. While that state of affairs likely affects property values, Mr.
Davis did not offer any probative evidence to quantify that effect or otherwise
to show a value or range of values for the subject parcel.
Because
the Davises did not offer probative evidence to show the subject parcel’s
market value-in-use, they failed to make a prima facie case for reducing the
parcel’s assessment.
