In this case, the subject property’s
valuation history report shows that the County Assessor assessed the property
for $62,100 in 2009. The PTABOA determined the property’s March 1, 2010, value
is $84,900, which represents an increase of more than 5%. Therefore, the
Assessor has the burden of proving the 2010 assessment is correct.
…
Here, the Assessor did not meet
her burden. Mr. Wallenfang relied on his analysis of five comparable sales in
the area to show the assessed value for the subject property. In order to
effectively use a sales-comparison analysis as evidence in a property
assessment appeal, the proponent must show that the properties 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). Rather,
the proponent must identify the characteristics of the subject property and
explain how those characteristics compare to the characteristics of the
purportedly comparable properties. Id. at 471. Similarly, the proponent
must explain how any affect the relative market values-in-use. The Assessor did not do this.
The Assessor presented no
evidence to show that the properties offered as comparisons were actually
comparable to the property under appeal. Instead, her witness offered five
properties that sold in the same area and simply compared the size, age, grade,
condition, year built, basement area, and garage area of those homes to the
subject property. Fatally, he did not address how these differences affected
the relative values. The Assessor’s evidence showed that the sale prices of
properties in the area ranged from $53.13 per square foot to $92.59 per square
foot in 2009. Thus, the Board can infer that the properties in the Englerts’
area varied a great deal. Because Mr. Wallenfang made no attempt to identify or
value the differences between the compared properties, the Assessor’s sales
comparable analysis has little probative value. As the Indiana Tax Court stated
in Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan v. Jennings County Assessor, 836
N.E.2d 1075, 1082 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005), “the Court has frequently reminded
taxpayers that statements that another property ‘is similar’ or ‘is comparable’
are nothing more than conclusions, and conclusory statements do not constitute
probative evidence. Rather, when challenging an assessment on the basis that
the comparable property has been treated differently, the taxpayer must provide
specific reasons as to why it believes the property is comparable. These
standards are no less applicable to assessing officials.” 836 N.E.2d at
1082 (citations omitted and emphasis added).
According to the Assessor, the
trending factor on the subject property dropped from 1.2 in 2008 to 0.95 in
2009. But the Assessor failed to provide any documentation as to why the
trending factor changed so dramatically. Then, in 2010, the trending factor
returned to 1.2 for the neighborhood based on valid sales in the neighborhood
from the preceding 14 months. When the trending factor was applied to the
subject property it resulted in an assessed value of $84,900. Based on this,
the Assessor claims the subject property is assessed correctly. The Assessor
failed to explain why the decreased trending factor in 2009 justified the 2010
assessment for the subject property.
More importantly, the Assessor
misunderstands the nature of her burden under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2.
When this statute applies, the Assessor’s burden is not merely to explain why
assessment increased, but to prove the assessment is “correct,” i.e. that
it reflects the market value-in-use. In this case, the Assessor needed to offer
probative evidence addressing the subject property’s actual market
value-in-use. The Assessor failed to offer such evidence.
