Mr. Menkhaus bought the subject
property for $189,300. A property’s sale price is often the best evidence of
its value. See Hubler Realty Co. v. Hendricks County Assessor, 938
N.E.2d 311, 315 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010) (finding that the Board’s determination
assigning greater weight to the property’s purchase price than its appraised
value was proper and supported by the evidence). That is particularly true
where, as here, the sale occurs close to the relevant valuation date.
The Assessor offered no probative
valuation evidence of his own to rebut that sale price. Instead, he simply
explained the procedures that were followed in assessing the property and
pointed to the fact that the DLGF approved his ratio study. But as the Indiana
Tax Court has explained, strictly applying assessment regulations does not
necessarily prove a property’s market value-in-use in an assessment appeal. See
Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 678 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006)
(holding that taxpayers failed to make a case by simply focusing on the
assessor’s methodology instead of offering market value-in-use evidence).
The Assessor likewise offered no
authority for using a ratio study to prove that an individual property’s
assessment reflects its market value-in-use. In fact, the International
Association of Assessing Official’s Standard on Ratio Studies, which 50 IAC
27-1-4 incorporates by reference, prohibits using ratio studies for that
purpose:
Assessors, appeal boards,
taxpayers, and taxing authorities can use ratio studies to evaluate the
fairness of funding distributions, the merits of class action claims, or the
degree of discrimination. . . . . However, ratio study statistics cannot be
used to judge the level of appraisal of an individual
parcel. Such
statistics can be used to adjust assessed values on appealed properties to the
common level.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
ASSESSING OFFICIALS STANDARD ON RATIO STUDIES VERSION 17.03 Part 2.3 (Approved
by IAAO Executive Board 07/21/2007) (bold added, italics in original)
