The Petitioners contended the
2012 land assessment should be reduced to either the land assessment for 2013
which was $116,900, or to $96,000. With respect to the contention that the land
assessment should be reduced to the 2013 land assessment, each assessment and
each tax year, however, stand alone. Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax
Comm’rs, 747 N.E.2d 645, 650 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (citing Glass
Wholesalers, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 568 N.E.2d 1116, 1124 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 1991)). Thus, evidence as to a property’s assessment in one tax year is
not probative of its true tax value in a different tax year. See Id. And,
regarding the contention that the land assessment should be decreased to $96,000,
the Petitioners failed to provide any evidence to support this number.
c. The Petitioners further
asserted they purchased the land for $139,000 in 2007. Regardless of the method
used to rebut an assessment’s presumption of accuracy, a party must explain how
its evidence relates to the subject property’s market value-in-use as of the
relevant valuation date. O’Donnell v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin.,854
N.E.2d 90, 95 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); see also Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821
N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). For the March 1, 2012, assessment, the valuation
date was March 1, 2012. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-4.5(f); 50 IAC 27-5-2(c). Here, the
Petitioners offered no explanation to relate the 2007 purchase price to the March
1, 2012, valuation date. Accordingly, this testimony is of no probative value. See
Id.
d. The Petitioners presented a
property record card from a neighboring property, contending the assessments
should be similar. A party to an appeal proceeding may introduce evidence of
assessments of comparable properties located in the same taxing district or
within two miles of the boundary of the taxing district. The determination of
whether the properties are comparable shall be based on generally accepted
appraisal and assessment principles. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-18.
e. In order to rely on this
evidence in an assessment appeal a party must first show that the properties
being examined are comparable to each other. Conclusory statements that a
property is “similar” or “comparable” to another property are not probative of
the properties’ comparability. Long v. Wayne Township Assessor, 821
N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). Instead, one must identify the characteristics
of the property under appeal and explain how those characteristics compare to
the characteristics of the purportedly comparable properties. Similarly, one
must explain how any differences between the properties affect their relative market
values-in-use. Id. The Petitioners failed to offer a meaningful
comparison of the parcels in terms of characteristics that would affect their
relative markets values-in-use. Here, other than showing that this property was
comparable in size to the subject property, the Petitioners failed to show how
the comparable lot was in fact comparable. Eggleston testimony.
f. The Petitioners also asserted
that property values were declining in their subdivision. The Petitioners,
however, presented no probative market evidence to support this contention.
Unsubstantiated conclusions do not constitute probative evidence. Whitley
Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax
Ct. 1998).
g. In this appeal, the taxpayers
failed to provide probative evidence supporting their position that the land
assessment should be decreased below the prior year land assessment.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Eggleston_06-003-12-1-5-00253.pdf
