Thursday, January 2, 2014

Board Finds that Assessor with Burden Failed to Support Assessed Value with Listing Price

Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow: 

15. The Assessor valued the subject property at $9,600 for 2011. The assessment under appeal—the PTABOA’s determination of $14,200 for 2012—represents an increase of far more than 5%. The Assessor therefore has the burden of proving that the 2012 assessment is correct. To the extent that Mr. Robinson seeks an assessment below $9,600, he bears the burden of proving that lower value.
 

b. The Assessor mainly argued that she followed the 2011 Real Property Assessment Guidelines in computing a unit value for the subject property and applied negative influence factors that had originally been designed to make the property’s assessment reflect its purchase price from 2006. It is insufficient to make a prima facie case by simply showing how the Guidelines were, or should be applied. See Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 677 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (holding that a taxpayer failed to make a prima facie case by focusing strictly on the assessor’s methodology in applying assessment regulations). Thus, the Assessor needed to show that her Guidelines-based assessment is a correct market value-in-use. She did not offer any probative evidence to support such a finding. That is particularly true given that the negative influence factors she applied to the property were based on how various characteristics affected its value in the 2006, rather than the 2012, real estate market. See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (finding that an appraisal estimating the value of the taxpayers’ property as of December 10, 2003, lacked probative value where taxpayers failed to explain how the appraisal related to the property’s value as of January 1, 1999).

c. The Assessor also points to the fact that Mr. Robinson listed the property for sale at $21,600. Again, that does little to show the market value-in-use. While an unsuccessful listing might arguably show the upper limit of market value, it does little to prove a particular value, or range of values, below that limit.

d. Because the Assessor did not offer probative evidence to show the market value-in-use, she failed to make a prima facie case that the 2012 assessment is correct. Therefore, Mr. Robinson is entitled to have that assessment returned to its 2011 level of $9,600.

17. Mr. Robinson, however, did not prove his assessment should be less than it was for 2011.  The Board reaches this conclusion for the following reasons:

a. In seeking a lower value, Mr. Robinson offered assessment data for two nearby lots—one on Saint Joe Road and one on Ashland Drive. The Indiana Code allows parties to offer evidence about comparable assessments to prove the value of a property under appeal, but comparability must be determined using generally accepted assessment and appraisal practices. I.C. § 6-1.1-15-18. Thus, a party must explain how the relevant characteristics of a property under appeal compare to those of any purportedly comparable property on which he seeks to rely. He must also explain how any differences between the properties affect their values. See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (rejecting comparable sales evidence).

b. Beyond noting that the three properties are all roughly the same size and are located next to each other, Mr. Robinson did not meaningfully compare the other two properties to the subject property, much less account for any relevant differences. While he argued that the neighborhood’s land assessments are inconsistent and have fluctuated over time, he did not even attempt to explain how those facts show any particular value for the subject property. Therefore, Mr. Robinson failed to prove the 2012 assessment should be reduced below its 2011 level.