The Assessor assessed the subject
property for $83,900 in 2009. For 2010, the PTABOA determined the property’s
assessment at $95,600—an increase of more than 5%. The Assessor therefore has
the burden of proving that the 2010, assessment was correct. To the extent that
the Speakmans seek an assessment below the previous year’s level, however, they
bear the burden of proving that lower value.
…
The Assessor relied on Mr.
Wallenfang’s analysis of five sales from the Speakmans’ neighborhood. The
sales-comparison approach is a generally accepted appraisal method that
“estimates the total value of [a given] property directly by comparing it to
similar, or comparable, properties that have sold in the market.” MANUAL at 3.
In order to use a sales-comparison analysis as evidence in an assessment
appeal, however, one must show that the properties on which that analysis is
based are truly comparable to the property under appeal. Conclusory statements
that a property is “similar” or “comparable” to another property do not
suffice. Long v. Wayne Township Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax
Ct. 2005). Instead, one must identify the appealed property’s characteristics
and explain how those characteristics compare to the characteristics of the
sold properties. Id. at 471. Similarly, one must explain how any
relevant differences affect the properties’ relative market values-in-use. Id.
Although Mr. Wallenfang compared
the five sold properties to the subject property along several lines, he did
not address how relevant differences affected the relative values. For example,
he neither quantitatively adjusted, nor qualitatively analyzed, the comparable
properties’ sale prices to account for those differences. At most, Mr. Wallenfang
simply pointed out that the subject property was assessed for less than the other
properties’ median sale price per square foot of living area. Without some explanation
showing that such an analysis complies with generally accepted appraisal principles,
the Board will not assume that it does.
Because the Assessor failed to
meet her burden of proof, the 2010 assessment must be reduced to the previous
year’s level of $83,900. That, however, does not end the Board’s inquiry. The
Speakmans asked for an assessment of $78,000. And they have the burden of
proving that they are entitled to that additional reduction. The Board therefore
turns to the Speakmans’ evidence.
…
Pearl Speakman testified that two
banks believed the subject property was worth no more than $78,000. But he
offered nothing to show how either bank arrived at that number. Those valuation
opinions are therefore entirely conclusory and carry no probative weight.
The Speakmans attached to their
Form 131 petition copies of what appear to be portions of three pages from a
six-page appraisal report estimating the subject property’s value at $78,000. See
Bd. Ex. A. But the Speakmans did not offer those documents, or even refer
to them, at the Board’s hearing. Even if those documents were in evidence, the
Board would give little or no weight to an appraisal report that is missing key
parts. In any case, the appraisal report estimated the subject property’s value
as of December 27, 2011—more than 21 months after the relevant valuation date
of March 1, 2010. And the Speakmans did not explain how the report related to the
subject property’s value as of that relevant valuation date. See Long, 821
N.E.2d at 471 (finding that taxpayers’ evidence lacked probative value where
they did not explain how it related to their property’s market value-in-use as
of the relevant valuation date).
Mr. Speakman also pointed to
various problems with the neighborhood. While some of those problems might have
affected the market for their property, the Speakmans offered no probative
evidence from which to quantify that effect or to otherwise show a value, or
even a likely range of values, for it. Mr. Speakman did at least point to the sale
of a nearby income-producing duplex. But he did even less to compare that property
to the subject property than Mr. Wallenfang did for the five purportedly comparable
properties in his sales-comparison analysis. The duplex’s sale price therefore
lacks probative value.
Finally, the Speakmans contend
that they should receive a credit for the previous 15 years in which their home
was incorrectly assessed as having a full basement. Those previous years’ assessments,
however, are not before the Board in this appeal.
