Mr.
Martin first claimed that his home was assessed too high compared to other
similar homes in the county. In support of his contentions, the Petitioner
submitted property record cards for the subject property and the four
comparable homes.
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. However, “the determination of whether properties are comparable
shall be made using generally accepted appraisal and assessment practices.” Id.
Here
Mr. Martin merely observed that because the four comparable properties have
“large” homes with similar type interior finish that they would attract the
same potential buyer as the subject property in Cass County. But it is not
clear that a property is comparable simply because the size of the home might
attract the same potential buyer as the subject property. The property’s
location, its lot size and the age, size, quality of construction, condition
and amenities of the house all play a role in the value of the property. See
Long v. Wayne Township Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005).
Because the Petitioner made no attempt to identify specific similarities in the
properties or value the differences between the properties, the assessed values
of the comparable properties do not support a finding that the Petitioner’s
property was assessed incorrectly.
The
Petitioner also contends that his property was over-valued based on the listing
prices of two similar properties in the county. Martin testimony. In
support of this position, Mr. Martin submitted multiple listing sheets for 6969
East Logansport Road and 5101 Canterbury Lane. Petitioner Exhibits 6 and 7. In
essence, Mr. Martin offers a “sales comparison approach valuation” based on two
comparable properties’ listing prices. 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
properties. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470. Instead, the party seeking to rely
on a sales comparison approach must explain the characteristics of the subject
property and how those characteristics compare to those of the purportedly comparable
properties. See id. at 470-71. They must also explain how any
differences between the properties affect their relative market value-in-use. Id.
Here,
Mr. Martin merely testified that 6969 East Logansport Road is in the same
school district and has less land, but has a swimming pool and horse barn with
an apartment. Mr. Martin also testified that the property located at 5101
Canterbury Lane is similar in size and amenities as the subject property.
However, this falls short of the burden to prove that properties are comparable
as established by the Indiana Supreme Court. See Beyer v. State, 280
N.E.2d 604, 607 (Ind. 1972). In addition, Mr. Martin made no attempt to value
the differences between the properties. Thus, the Petitioner failed to show its
property was over-valued based on the listing prices of the properties located
at 6969 East Logansport Road and 5101 Canterbury Lane.
Further,
Mr. Martin argued that the “great recession” disconnected the link between
construction cost and the market value-in-exchange of “large” homes in Cass
County and, in fact the country. Martin testimony. But the Petitioner
provided no evidence of the data upon which he relied to make his conclusions.
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).
Finally,
Mr. Martin contends that because the assessor reduced his home’s 2012 assessed
value to $450,700, this demonstrates that the assessed value of the house was
too high in 2011 and should be reduced. Martin testimony. But each
assessment and each tax year stands alone. Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Board
of Tax Commissioners, 747 N.E.2d 645, 650 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (citing Glass
Wholesalers, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 568 N.E.2d 1116,
1124 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1991)). Thus, evidence as to a property’s assessment in one
tax year is not probative of its true tax value in a different tax year. Id.
There are numerous reasons why the value of a property would change from
one year to the next year, and it was the Petitioner’s burden to show that the
assessment for the year at issue was incorrect.
