To the extent that the Petitioner
may be attempting to dispute the amount of his taxes rather than the assessment
of the subject property, the Board lacks jurisdiction to hear his claim. The
Board is a creation of the legislature and has only the powers conferred by
statute. Whetzel v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 761 N.E.2d 904, 908 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 2001) (citing Matonovich v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 705 N.E.2d
1093, 1096 (Ind. Tax Ct.1999)). The Board can address appeals from
determinations made by local assessing officials or county PTABOAs that concern
property valuations, property tax deductions, property tax exemptions, or
property tax credits. Ind. Code § 6-1.5-4-1(a).
Real property is assessed based
on its "true tax value," which means "the market value-in-use of
a property for its current use, as reflected by the utility received by the owner
or a similar user, from the property." Ind. Code § 6-1.1-31-6(c). The cost
approach, the sales comparison approach, and the income approach are three generally
accepted techniques to calculate market value-in-use. Assessing officials primarily
use the cost approach. A taxpayer, however, is permitted to offer other evidence
relevant to market value-in-use to rebut an assessed valuation. That evidence
may include actual construction costs, sales information regarding the subject
or comparable properties, appraisals, and any other information compiled in accordance
with generally accepted appraisal principles.
Regardless of the method used to
rebut an assessment’s presumption of accuracy, a party must explain how its
evidence relates to market value-in-use as of the relevant valuation date. O’Donnell
v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Finance, 854 N.E.2d 90, 95 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); see
also Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005).
The valuation date for a 2011 assessment was March 1, 2011. 50 IAC 27- 5-2(c).
Any evidence of value relating to a different date must also have an explanation
about how it demonstrates, or is relevant to, the value as of that required valuation
date. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471.
The Petitioner compared the
asking price and the sale price of six parcels in the area and determined the
average asking price was $236,000 and the average selling price was $155,000.
The Petitioner claimed that this information demonstrated a 34% reduction in
value, but he failed to offer any substantial authority that this methodology
conforms to generally accepted appraisal principles for determining value. The
Petitioner’s conclusory calculation of a 34% differential does not measure anything
of significance regarding the actual market value-in-use of the subject property.
Furthermore, this calculation does not prove that values are decreasing.
To effectively use any kind of
comparison approach to value a property, one must establish that properties
truly are comparable. Conclusory statements that properties are “similar” or
“comparable” are not sufficient. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470. In this case,
the Petitioner was “responsible for explaining to the Indiana Board the characteristics
of their own property, how those characteristics compared to those of the
purportedly comparable properties, and how any differences affected the
relevant market value-in-use of the properties.” Id. at 471. Except for
proximity to his property, the Petitioner provided no comparison whatsoever
regarding the other homes. Additionally, the Petitioner did not provide the
dates of the sales. Therefore, those sales are not probative evidence for an
accurate assessed valuation of the subject property.
The Petitioner identified other
purported problems with the subject property. They include a ditch, small
nearby lots unsuitable to build on, a road with a high volume of traffic, a
goat farm, and the presence of undesirable wildlife. An influence factor can be
used to account for characteristics of a particular parcel of land that are
peculiar to that parcel. It is expressed as a percentage that represents the
composite effect of the factor that influences the value. REAL PROPERTY
ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR 2002 – VERSION A, Glossary at 10 (incorporated by
reference at 50 IAC 2.3-1-2). To prevail on the issue of an influence factor,
the taxpayer must present probative evidence that would support an application
of a negative influence factor and provide a quantification of that influence
factor at the administrative level. Talesnick v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs,
756 N.E.2d 1104, 1108 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001). While the factors identified by the
Petitioner might affect his property, he offered no probative evidence to
quantify any of them. The Petitioner’s unsubstantiated conclusions do not
constitute probative evidence. See Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of
Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
The Petitioner did not make a
prima facie case for any assessment change. 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); Whitley, 704 N.E.2d at 1119.
