In this case, the Petitioner is attempting to use listing prices rather than a selling price to establish value. She claims that the assessment is wrong based on her inability to sell this property in 2008 and 2009 for a price well below the disputed assessment.
31. More specifically, she claimed that the land value is assessed too high based on the fact that she was unable to sell the property in late 2008 though 2009 for an amount between $12,000 to $25,000. The Petitioner first listed the property for sale with Remax in August of 2008 for $25,000. Soon after, the price was lowered to $22,900. The property received no offers at this price. The property was then listed on the internet from March to September of 2009 for $19,000. The asking price was eventually lowered to $12,000 and it still did not sell.
32. The Petitioner’s argument fails because she failed to show how her evidence related to the required valuation date of January 1, 2007. The time period of August of 2008 through September of 2009 is beyond both the assessment date and the appropriate valuation period, which included January of 2006 to December of 2007. The Petitioner offered no other evidence as to the purportedly “correct” valuation of the property other than the fact that she could not sell it for a range of $25,000 to $12,000 during the period of August of 2008 to September of 2009. With only this evidence, the Petitioner failed to make a prima facie case that the 2008 assessment needs to be changed.
33. When a taxpayer fails to provide probative evidence supporting the position that an assessment should be changed, the Respondent’s duty to support the assessment with substantial evidence is not triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003); Whitley, 704 N.E.2d at 1119.