When taxpayers challenge the
accuracy of their assessments, they must do more than complain that the method
by which their assessment was computed was incorrect. Rather, they must present
objectively verifiable evidence demonstrating what their property’s market
value-in-use actually is. See O’Donnell
v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 854 N.E.2d 90, 94 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); P/A
Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings Co. Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899,
900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 841 N.E.2d
674, 677 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006).
…
For the 2011 assessment, the Petitioner
merely complained that the method used to determine the grade was improper. The
Petitioner failed to offer any probative evidence that the bank building is not
a B+2 grade. Instead, the Petitioner provided evidence that generally described
the characteristics that help determine the grade to assign a building. But the
Petitioner failed to actually compare these characteristics with the
characteristics of this bank building to show what grade was more appropriate.
Further, the Petitioner did not offer any evidence regarding the actual market
value-in-use of the property. As a result, the Petitioner failed to make a prima
facie case regarding the 2011 assessment.
…
The Assessor had the burden to
prove the 2012 assessment is correct because it increased more than 5% from
2011 to 2012. Specifically, the property was assessed at $932,000.00 in 2011,
and $1,008,600.00 in 2012. To the extent that the Petitioner seeks an
assessment below the previous year’s level, it has the burden of proving any
lower value, which it did not do—the Petitioner did not offer any evidence of
the property’s actual market value-in use.
The Respondent presented the
building permit application for this building. The document reflects estimated
costs from 2009 and 2010 in the amount of $1,000,200.
Regardless of the method used to
establish market value-in-use, a party must explain how its evidence relates to
the required valuation date. O’Donnell, 854 N.E.2d at
95; see also Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax
Ct. 2005). Any evidence of value relating to a different date must have an
explanation about how it demonstrates, or is relevant to, value as of that date.
Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471. Here, the Respondent failed to relate the 2009
and 2010 construction costs to March 1, 2012, which is the required valuation
date. Accordingly, the building permit data is of no probative value.
Without significant explanation
or comment, the Respondent also submitted two exterior photographs of the
building. But photographs without explanation have little or no probative
value. Bernacchi v. State Bd. of Tax
Comm’rs,
727 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000).
The Respondent testified that the
only difference between the 2011 assessment and the 2012 assessment is the cost
tables in the Guidelines, which were changed because 2012 was a reassessment
year. Even if the assessment correctly applied the new cost tables, this
evidence does not establish the actual market value-in-use of the property.
The Respondent did not present a prima
facie case to support the 2012 assessment. In other cases where the
Respondent had the burden to prove the assessment is correct and the Respondent
failed to carry that burden, the Board has ordered that the assessment be returned
to the assessed value of the year before. In this case, doing so reduces the
2012 assessment to $932,600.
