d. The Petitioner submitted a
list of expenses showing the property operated at a loss, but did not present
an income approach with market information that conforms to generally accepted
appraisal principles to prove value as of January 1, 2008.
e. Although the Petitioner
contends the 2009 value should be the same as for 2008, each assessment and
each tax year stands alone. See Quality Stores, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax
Comm’rs, 740 N.E.2d 939, 942 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000).
f. Finally, even if the property
record card contains an error concerning the framing, merely contesting the
methodology used to compute the assessment misses the mark as well. Eckerling
v. Wayne County Assessor, 841 N.E.2d at 674, 677-78 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006).
Rather, to successfully make a case, the Petitioner needed to show the assessment
does not accurately reflect market value-in-use. Id.; see also P/A Builders &
Developers, LLC v. Jennings County Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind. Tax
Ct. 2006) (explaining that proper focus is on what the correct value actually
is, not on methodology). The Petitioner did not do so.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Novogroder_Lowell_LLC_45-012-09-1-4-00001.pdf
