To support the subject property's assessment, the Assessor pointed to a ratio study that she performed for the subject neighborhood and Liberty Township. The Assessor apparently argues that, because the median ratio for each area met the DLGF's standards for an acceptable mass appraisal, the subject property's assessment must be correct. The Assessor, however, offered no support for the notion that a ratio study may be used to prove that an individual property's assessment reflects its market value-in-use. Indeed, the International Association of Assessing Official‘s Standard on Ratio Studies, which 50 IAC 27-1-4 incorporates by reference, says otherwise:
Assessors,
appeal boards, taxpayers, and taxing authorities can use ratio studies ratio
study to evaluate the fairness of funding distributions, the merits of class
action claims, or the degree of discrimination. . . . . However, ratio study
statistics cannot be used to judge the level of appraisal
of an individual parcel. Such statistics can be used to adjust
assessed values on appealed properties to the common level.
INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSING OFFICIALS STANDARD ON RATIO STUDIES VERSION 17.03 Part
2.3 (Approved by IAAO Executive Board 07/21/2007) (bold added italics in
original).
Although
not entirely clear, it appears that the Assessor also offered the ratio study
to justify why the subject property's assessment increased by more than 11%
between 2009 and 2010. According to the Assessor, she increased neighborhood
factors for properties in the subject neighborhood in order to make the
neighborhood's mass appraisal more fair and equitable and to bring the
neighborhood's median ratio within the range that 50 IAC 27-4-5(b) permits.
Thus, the Assessor claimed that the burden shifted to Mr. Turoski to prove that
the subject property's assessment was incorrect.
The
Assessor, however, misunderstands the nature of her burden under Ind. Code §
6-1.1-15-17.2. Where that statute applies, the Assessor's burden is not merely
to explain why the property under appeal's assessment increased over the
previous year, but rather to prove that the property's assessment is “correct,”
i.e. that it reflects the property's market value-in-use. Thus, the
Assessor needed to offer probative evidence addressing the subject property's
market value-in-use. As discussed above, the Assessor failed to do that,
choosing instead to rely on statistics designed to evaluate her mass appraisal
of the subject property's neighborhood and Liberty Township.
Because
the Assessor offered no probative evidence to show that the subject property's
March 1, 2010 assessment reflected its market value-in-use, she failed to make
a prima facie case showing that the subject property's assessment was correct.
The property‘s March 1, 2010 assessment therefore must be reduced to its
previous year‘s level of $178,700.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Turoski_91-010-10-1-5-00006.pdf
