Turning to the case at hand, both
parties agreed the Respondent had the burden of proving the 2006 assessment is
correct. Gaiter testimony; Smith testimony.
…
b. The Respondent presented no
such evidence to establish the market-value-in-use of the property.
c. Instead, the Respondent
testified about how the mass appraisal system and annual trending is supposed
to work, as well as how she met those responsibilities. She implied that this
assessment draws validity from the fact that the assessed value is within an
acceptable range for mass appraisals as determined by the sales ratio study. An
appeal of an individual assessment, however, is an entirely different thing.
The Respondent provided no authority or substantial explanation for the conclusion
that there is an acceptable range for establishing the value of property for
the purposes of this appeal. Such unsubstantiated conclusions do not constitute
probative evidence. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704
N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
d. The Respondent argued the
increase from 2005 to 2006 does not prove the assessment is incorrect, but that
is not the standard. Rather, the burden was on the Respondent to prove the
current assessment is correct through the presentation of market-based
evidence.
e. The Respondent did not support
the accuracy of the existing assessment with any meaningful market value-in-use
evidence.
