Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Board Finds Respondent Failed to Support Assessed Value of Property

...

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.