The Petitioner presented a
comparative market analysis based on three properties and concluded that it
indicated a market value of $95,000 for the subject property. To effectively
use any kind of comparison approach to value a property, one must establish
that properties truly are comparable. Conclusory statements that properties are
“similar” or “comparable” are not sufficient. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470.
The Petitioner is “responsible for explaining to the Indiana Board the
characteristics of their own property, how those characteristics compared to
those of the purportedly comparable properties, and how any differences
affected the relevant market value-in-use of the properties.” Id. at
471. The Petitioner provided no such comparison in this appeal. Instead, Ms.
Hamilton merely identified the addresses, their selling or asking price, the
number of days on the market, and in some cases the number of rental units. She
even testified that one of the selected properties was not comparing “apples to
apples.” Additionally, the cover letter of this document is dated January 12,
2012. No explanation was offered to relate this analysis to the relevant
valuation date. Accordingly, the comparative market analysis is not probative. See
Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119,
(Ind. Tax Ct. 1998) (explaining that unsupported conclusory statements are not
probative evidence).
The Petitioner presented 2010
monthly income figures and a redacted portion of his 2010 Federal tax Schedule
E showing the subject property’s income and expenses. According to the
Petitioner, this data demonstrated that the return on investment would be 2.93%
based on the 2011 assessment of record and such a return would be too low. The
Petitioner, however, failed to establish that simply using the revenue and
expenses of the subject property to determine its value conforms to generally
accepted appraisal principles. Additionally, even if true, this point does
nothing to establish the market value-in-use of the subject property. This
conclusory evidence is of no probative value. Whitley, 704 N.E.2d at
1119.
The subject property was listed
for sale on December 20, 2010, with an initial asking price of $119,000, which
later was lowered to $116,000. The property was on the market for 388 days, but
only one offer was made during that whole time. It was for $100,000 and
required the Petitioner to pay all closing costs and realtor fees. The net
proceeds from this offer would have been approximately $95,000. This offer was
not accepted.
This evidence, although minimal,
is sufficient to establish a prima facie case the subject property had a market
value no more than $116,000 on the relevant valuation date.
Once the Petitioner establishes a
prima facie case, the burden shifts to the assessing official to rebut the
Petitioner’s evidence. See American United Life Ins. Co. v. Maley, 803
N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004). The assessing official must offer evidence that
impeaches or rebuts the Petitioner’s evidence. Id.; Meridian Towers, 805
N.E.2d at 479.
A substantial amount of the
Respondent’s case related to how the mass appraisal system and annual trending
works, as well as how the Respondent met these requirements. The Respondent
implied that the subject property’s assessment draws validity from the fact
that the disputed assessment was computed using procedures approved by the
state for mass appraisals. An appeal of an individual assessment, however, is
an entirely different thing. Accordingly, this argument is of no probative
value when determining whether the current assessment is correct.
The Respondent also introduced an
income capitalization report that concluded the true tax value of the property
was $155,738. As the Respondent acknowledged, however, the assessment of this
rental property must be the lowest valuation determined by the three approaches
to value. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-39. The value determined by the income
capitalization approach value exceeds the value that was determined by the cost
approach, which was $139,700. Accordingly, the income capitalization
calculation does nothing to support the current assessment.
The Respondent did not support
the assessment with substantial evidence.
