The thrust of the Petitioners’
case concerned to alleged errors on the property record card that erroneously
increased the value of the property including the assessment of a shed that has
no gas and no electric service, and a stairway to an attic in the front house
that does not exist. However, even if the property record card contains errors
concerning the shed or attic, the Petitioners still failed to meet their burden
by simply contesting the methodology used to compute the assessment. Eckerling
v. Wayne County Assessor, 841 N.E.2d at 674, 677 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). To
successfully make a case the Petitioners needed to show the assessment does not
accurately reflect the subject property’s 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 not on methodology,
but rather, on what the correct value actually is). The Petitioners failed to present
any evidence that the assessment did not correctly reflect the property’s
market value-in-use.
d. The Petitioners presented
testimony that a house two blocks from their home sold for $65,000 in 2009. To
effectively use any kind of comparison approach to value a property, one must
establish that the properties are truly 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. Here, the Petitioners failed to make any
comparisons at all between the subject property and the comparable property.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Brunson_45-023-10-1-5-00003.pdf
