Here, the Petitioner offered an appraisal signed by Ray A. Johnson and William Daddono, of Advanced Appraisal Consultants, that estimated the value of the Petitioner’s real property as a going concern to be $498,000 as of May 31, 2010. Petitioner exhibit 4. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Daddono are both certified appraisers who attested that they prepared the appraisal in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Id. While the appraisal values the property as of May 31, 2010, the Petitioner’s representative presented a calculation based on the consumer price index estimating the value of the subject property to be $461,000 as of January 1, 2007, for the March 1, 2008, assessment date; $474,300 as of January 1, 2008, for the March 1, 2009, assessment; and $495,400 as of March 1, 2010, for the 2010 assessment.. Petitioner Exhibit 5. An appraisal performed in conformance with generally recognized appraisal principles is often enough to establish a prima facie case that a property’s assessment is incorrect. See Meridian Towers, 805 N.E.2d at 479. The Board therefore finds that the Petitioner raised a prima facie case that the property was over-valued for the 2008, 2009 and 2010 assessment years.
Once
the Petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the
assessing official to rebut the Petitioner’s evidence. See American United
Life Insurance Co. v. Maley, 803 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004). To rebut
or impeach the Petitioner’s case, the Respondent has the same burden to present
probative evidence that the Petitioner faced to raise its prima facie case. Fidelity
Federal Savings & Loan v. Jennings County Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 1075,
1082 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005).
Although
she did little to develop her arguments, the Respondent attempted to impeach
the appraisal presented by the Petitioner in two ways. First, she argues that
because the appraisal was prepared for the purpose of obtaining a loan and not
for the purpose of an assessment, the values contained in the appraisal should
not apply. Gaiter argument. While an appraiser in such circumstances
conceivably might be more concerned with determining whether the property being
appraised is worth at least the amount of the proposed loan than with
determining the precise market value of the property, the Respondent did not
present any evidence that the appraisers were so motivated in this case. To the
contrary, the appraisers certified that the appraisal was prepared in
conformity with USPAP. Petitioner Exhibit 4. Consequently, the fact that
the appraisers prepared the appraisal for loan purposes does not detract from
the credibility or reliability of their opinion of value. Secondly, the
Respondent argues that some of the comparable properties used in the
Petitioner’s appraisal were bankruptcy properties. Gaiter argument. But
the Respondent failed to point to any specific comparable sale that she
contends was a bankruptcy sale. While the rules of evidence generally do not
apply in the Board’s hearings, the Board requires some evidence of the accuracy
and credibility of the evidence. Statements that are unsupported by probative
evidence are conclusory and of little value to the Board in making its
determination. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 704
N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998); and Herb v. State Board of Tax Commissioners,
656 N.E.2d 890, 893 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995).
Similarly,
the Respondent offered the conclusory testimony that according to her trending
numbers, the value for the subject property falls within the range of
comparable properties in Jackson County. Gaiter testimony. However, she
failed to present any substantial evidence or explanation for how she came to
this conclusion. Such conclusory statements are not probative evidence and do
not help to prove what the properties. 2008, 2009 or 2010 assessment should be.
Whitley Products, 704 N.E.2d at 1119. Ultimately, the Respondent failed
to present any valuation evidence of its own. The Board therefore finds that
the Respondent failed to rebut or impeach the Petitioner’s evidence.
