The parties agree that the
subject property’s assessment increased more than 5%—from $3,000 to
$3,500—between March 1, 2010, and March 1, 2011. The Respondent therefore has
the burden of proving that the assessment was correct. To the extent that the
Petitioners seek an assessment below the previous year’s level, however, they
have the burden of proving a lower value for the subject parcel.
…
Here, the Respondent attempted to
support the subject parcel’s assessment by comparing it to the assessments of
purportedly comparable properties. Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-18 allows parties to
introduce assessments of comparable properties to prove the market value-in-use
of a property under appeal. But where an appeal involves a residential
property, those comparable properties must be located in the same taxing
district or within two miles of the taxing district’s boundary. Ind. Code §
6-1.1-15-18(c)(1). Here, only one of the Respondent’s five comparable
properties is in the subject parcel’s township, and the record does not show
how far away from the township’s boundaries the other properties are located.
Even if one assumes that the
parcels meet Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-18’s taxing-district requirements, other
properties’ assessments do not necessarily prove the market value-in-use of a
property under appeal. Instead, the party relying on those assessments must
show that the other properties are comparable to the property under appeal and
how relevant differences affect their relative values. See Ind. Code §
6-1.1-15-18(c)(2) (requiring the use of generally accepted appraisal and assessment
practices to determine whether properties are comparable); see also Long, 821
N.E.2d at 471 (finding sales data lacked probative value where they did not
explain how purportedly comparable properties compared to their property or how
relevant differences affected the properties’ relative market values-in-use).
Granted, the Respondent chose
mostly tree-covered vacant lots that are roughly similar in size to the subject
parcel. But her comparison of the parcels ended there. And she did not explain
how any relevant differences between the parcels affected their relative
values. Perhaps most importantly, at least part of the subject parcel contains
streams and springs, and is located in a flood plain, while there is no indication
that any of the other parcels suffer from similar problems.
The Respondent therefore failed
to make a prima facie case that the subject parcel’s March 1, 2011 assessment
of $3,500 was correct. But the Board’s inquiry does not end there—the
Petitioners seek an assessment below the parcel’s March 1, 2010 value of
$3,000. It is to that question that the Board now turns.
…
The Petitioners claim that the
parcel’s wet and marshy condition limits its value to no more than $1,800 to
$2,000. But simply listing a property’s problems does not suffice to prove its
value. Instead, a party must offer probative evidence to quantify that value.
Since the Petitioners failed to do that, the Board will not lower the subject
parcel’s assessment below its March 1, 2010 level of $3,000.
