The Petitioners primarily argue
that the Assessor misapplied the Guidelines. They claim measurements are wrong,
the number of stories is wrong, the number of bathrooms is wrong, the basement
area is wrong, the condition rating is wrong, and the neighborhood life cycle
is wrong. Indeed, some of the data regarding the subject property may be wrong.
Some of the Petitioner’s claims, however, would fail based on a strict
application of the Guidelines. For example, exterior measurements are to be
used, not interior measurements. But more importantly, the Petitioners failed
to present any evidence to show the impact of any erroneous data on value. And
to repeat, claims based on strict application of the Guidelines are
insufficient to rebut the presumption that the assessment is correct. O’Donnell, 854 N.E.2d at 95; Eckerling, 841
N. E. 2d at 678. To obtain any change to their assessment, the Petitioners needed
to show the assessment is not accurate market value-in-use and offer probative
evidence regarding a more accurate value.
The Petitioners established that
a HUD property across the street sold for a $1. Another neighboring HUD home
sold for approximately $100,000. But the Petitioners failed to establish a
meaningful basis for comparing these properties with their own or to account
for any ways the properties may differ. Accordingly, thesesales lack probative
value for this case. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471 (finding that sales
data lacked probative value where taxpayers did not compare the characteristics
of the subject property to those of the sold properties or explain how
differences affected the relative market values-in-use).
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/2536.htm
