Here,
the Petitioner submitted a market value appraisal prepared by Jeffrey R. Vale,
MAI and Indiana certified appraiser, and William L Eenshuistra, an Indiana
certified general appraiser, who attested they prepared the appraisal in
accordance with USPAP using the income approach and sales comparison approach.
The appraisers estimated the value of the property to be $1,125,000 as of
January 1, 2009. 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 Petitioners’ appraiser, Mr. Vale, testified that the market
was fairly poor in 2010; “so values either stayed the same or potentially
dropped a little bit.” Mr. Vale’s testimony was supported by the county’s
trending factor. Therefore, the Board finds that the Petitioners provided some
evidence to relate their January 1, 2009, appraised value to the March 1, 2010,
assessment date. Thus, the Board finds that the Petitioners raised a prima
facie case that their property’s assessed value should be reduced to $1,125,000
for the March 1, 2010, assessment date.
Once
the Petitioners established a prima facie case, the burden shifted to the
Respondent. See American United Life Insurance Co. v. Maley, 803 N.E.2d
276 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004). To rebut or impeach the Petitioners’ case, the
Respondent has the same burden to present probative evidence that the
Petitioners faced to raise a prima facie case. Fidelity Federal Savings
& Loan v. Jennings County Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 1075, 1082 (Ind. Tax
Ct.2005).
Here,
the Respondent’s representative contends that the Petitioners’ property was
properly valued in 2010 based on the sales of comparable properties. Respondent
Exhibits 1, 4-13. In making this argument, Ms. Ooms essentially relies on a
sales comparison approach. 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. Ooms submitted sales information for two shopping
centers and three retail properties. The Respondent’s witness, however, made no
attempt to show how the properties compared to the subject property and she
presented nothing to explain how any differences may have affected the
properties’ values. Thus, the Respondent’s evidence was too superficial to be
probative of the subject property’s market value-in-use. See Long, 821
N.E.2d at 471-72 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (holding that sales data lacked probative
value where taxpayers failed to explain how the characteristics of their
property compared to the characteristics of purportedly comparable properties
or how any differences between the properties affected their relative market
values-in-use).
The
Respondent also argued that the property sold in October of 2006 for $1.8
million. But the sale occurred over three years prior to the March 1, 2010,
valuation date. Because the Respondent failed to relate the property’s 2006
purchase price to the property’s market value-in-use as of March 1, 2010, the
evidence is insufficient to rebut the property’s appraised value.
Finally,
the Respondent argued that the appraisers' comparable properties were not
similar to the subject property. But it is not enough to simply point to flaws
in the Petitioners' evidence or assert that the property was assessed
correctly. The Respondent must bring forth evidence justifying its decision and
make an authoritative explanation of its determination. See Meridian Towers
East & West, 805 N.E.2d at 479; Miller Structures, Inc. v. State Bd.
of Tax Comm’rs, 748 N.E.2d 943, 948 (Ind. Tax 2001). Having failed to do
so, the Respondent fell short of its burden and failed to rebut the Petitioners‟
prima facie case.
