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.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Easterday_47-010-08-1-5-00061.pdf
