In these cases, the Respondent
had the burden to prove the 2006 assessments were correct.
…
b. The Respondent presented no
evidence to establish the market-value-in-use. Further, the Respondent did not
explain how the current assessments were determined and was unable to explain
what trending factor was used.
c. The Respondent merely claimed
the properties were assessed using the same trending factor as the other
properties in the Petitioner’s neighborhood, although she could not identify
this factor. This kind of testimony/argument is not helpful in determining the
actual market value-in-use of the subject property.
d. According to the Respondent,
the ratio study demonstrates some adjustment was needed to reflect the market
value-in-use of properties in the neighborhood. Even if true, this fact does
not prove the true tax value of the two parcels under appeal.
e. The Respondent did not support
the accuracy of the existing assessments with any meaningful market
value-in-use evidence. Accordingly, she failed to meet her burden of proof.
Therefore, these 2006 assessments must be reduced to their 2005 assessed
values.
