Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow:
...
The assessed value increased from $40,000 in 2010 to $48,200 in 2011, an increase of more than 5%. If the numbers were the only consideration, then Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 would dictate that the Respondent must prove the 2011 assessed valuation is correct. But this statute also requires comparing assessments for the same property. Here the increased assessment was based on the addition of previously omitted square footage, as well as correcting the measurements of the basement and crawl area. The Petitioner did not dispute those corrections.
The language of the statute must be applied as it was written. “Where the language is unambiguous, the Court has no power to construe the statute for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation.” Joyce Sportswear Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 684 N.E.2d 1189, 1192 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997). Under the plain language of Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2, the burden shifts to the assessor when the assessed value of the same property increases by more than 5%. But with the data corrections, the 2011 assessment was not
for the same property. In this case, Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 does not require the
Respondent to prove the 2011 assessed value is correct.
Accordingly, the Petitioner has the burden of proof in this appeal.
...
Accordingly, the Petitioner has the burden of proof in this appeal.
...
The Petitioner, however, presented no substantial evidence regarding the market
value-in-use of her property.
The taxpayer failed to provide probative evidence supporting her position that the assessment should be changed. Consequently, the Respondent’s duty to support the assessment with substantial evidence was not triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003). http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Green_18-005-11-1-5-00001.pdf
