...
18. The bulk of Mr. Drapinski’s evidence consists of photographs from 2012 depicting the subject home’s condition and his testimony that the home was in substantially the same condition on the March 1, 2007 and March 1, 2008 assessment dates. Those photographs show significant deferred maintenance. But Mr. Drapinski did not offer any probative evidence to quantify the effect of that deferred maintenance on the subject property’s market value-in-use or even to show a likely range of values for the property. Thus, without more, Mr. Drapinski’s photographs are not enough to make a prima facie case for changing the subject property’s assessment.
19. Mr. Drapinski also offered
evidence showing the sale prices for several other properties. But he did
little to explain how those properties compared to the subject property or how any
differences affected the properties’ relative values. Those sale prices
therefore have little or no probative value. See Long v. Wayne Twp.
Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 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).
20. While Mr. Drapinski failed to
make a prima facie case for reducing the subject property’s assessment, the
Assessor conceded that the property was worth only $16,000 for both 2007 and
2008. The Board accepts the Assessor’s concession.
