Here, the property’s assessed
value increased from $170,100 in 2005 to $242,800 in 2006, which is an increase
of approximately 43%. The Assessor, therefore, had the burden of proving the
2006 assessment is correct. To the extent that the Petitioners seek an
assessment below the previous year’s level, they have the burden of proving a
lower value for their property.
…
Here, the Respondent presented
MLS information for one property that sold in 2005 to show that the subject
property was not over-assessed. In making this argument the Respondent
essentially relies on a sales comparison approach to establish the market
value-in-use of the property. See MANUAL at 3 (stating that the sales
comparison approach “estimates the total value of the property directly by
comparing it to similar, or comparable, properties that have sold in the
market.”) In order to effectively use the sales comparison approach as evidence
in a property assessment appeal, however, the proponent must establish the
comparability of the properties being examined. Conclusory statements that a
property is “similar” or “comparable” to another property do not constitute
probative evidence of the comparability of the properties. Long, 821
N.E.2d at 470. Instead, 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 differences between the
properties affect their relative market values-in-use. Id. The
Respondent did not do this and, in fact, Mr. Metz testified he did not make any
adjustments at all.
Because the Respondent failed to
make a prima facie case, the assessment must be changed to the previous year’s
2005 assessed value of $170,100. That, however, does not end the Board’s
inquiry because the Petitioners requested a lower value. The Petitioners have
the burden of proving they were entitled to that additional reduction. The
Board, therefore, turns to the Petitioners’ evidence.
The Petitioners claimed the
subject property is over-assessed based on damage caused by flooding. Here, the
Petitioners are arguing that the subject property is affected by a negative
influence factor. An influence factor is used to account for characteristics of
a particular parcel of land that are peculiar to that parcel. It is expressed
as a percentage that represents the composite effect of the factor that
influences the value. GUIDELINES, glossary at 10. To prevail in the issue of an
influence factor, the taxpayer must present probative evidence that would
support an application of a negative influence factor and a quantification of
that influence factor at the administrative level. Talesnick v. State Bd. of
Tax Comm’rs, 756 N.E.2d 1104, 1108 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001); Phelps Dodge v.
State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 705 N.E.2d 1099 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999). While heavy
rains and flooding may affect the property’s value, the Petitioners offered no
probative evidence to show the extent to which they do so. The Petitioners’
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).
The Petitioners also point to
what they call “huge increases” in the assessment throughout the years, in
particular the land assessment, and requested that the land value be reduced to
the 1996 assessed value of $3,270. Various Indiana Tax Court rulings hold that
each tax year stands alone. The Indiana Tax Court has determined that evidence
as to a property’s assessment in one tax year is not probative of its true tax
value in a different tax year. Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax
Comm’rs, 747 N.E.2d 645, 650 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (citing Glass
Wholesalers, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 568 N.E.2d 1116, 1124 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 1991)) (“Finally, the Court reminds Fleet Supply that each assessment
and each tax year stands alone. … Thus, evidence as to the Main Building’s
assessment in 1992 is not probative as to its assessed value three years
later.”) While the Petitioners claim the utility of the property has declined,
the Petitioners failed to present any probative evidence that would support
their requested value.
The Petitioners argue that their
taxes are too high. The Petitioners, however, did not provide any evidence that
the property tax assessment was incorrect. While they feel the taxes are
excessive, the Board has no jurisdiction over the Petitioners’ taxes or the tax
rate applied to the assessment.
Finally, the Petitioners complain
that the Respondent did not view the subject property when it was flooded. The
Board’s proceedings are de novo and the failure by the Respondent to
view the subject property did not hinder the Petitioners ability to present
relevant evidence and argument before the Board. See Ind. Code § 6-1.1-
15-4. Therefore, the failure of the Respondent to view the subject property, in
this case, is irrelevant.
