26. According to Mr. Smith, the assessed acreage is
excessive; however, he agreed the assessed acreage (1.21 acres) conforms to the
legal description shown on the Property Record Card. Pet’r Ex. 1. The
GIS website relied upon by the Petitioner to determine acreage specifically
states its descriptions are not to be used for legal purposes. Meighen argument.
According to Mr. Smith, the legal description includes a portion of State Road 46,
but he presented no substantial evidence to support this conclusion.
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).
27. The Petitioner also contended a portion of the
land had been incorrectly classified as primary. In support of this position,
the Petitioner provided only two aerial photographs of the parcel. Without
explanation, photographs are conclusory and of no probative value. Bernacchi
v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 727 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000).
28. Here, the Petitioner failed to show that the
assessment was not a reasonable measure of true tax value. See 50 IAC
2.3-1-1(d) (“failure to comply with the … Guidelines … does not in itself show
that the assessment is not a reasonable measure of ‘True Tax Value[.]’”). The
Petitioner presented no market evidence to show that the assessment is not a
reasonable measure of the true tax value and the Petitioner’s arguments
regarding a strict application of the GUIDELINES are not enough to rebut the
presumption that the assessment is correct. See Eckerling v. Wayne Township
Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (stating that “when a taxpayer
chooses to challenge an assessment, he or she must show that the assessor's
assessed value does not accurately reflect the property's market value-in-use.
Strict application of the regulations is not enough to rebut the presumption
that the assessment is correct.”) Thus, the Petitioner must show through the use
of market-based evidence that the assessed value does not accurately reflect
the market value-in-use of this property. Here, the Petitioner did not.
Therefore, the Petitioner failed to make a prima facie case. See Eckerling,
(“In challenging their assessment, the Eckerlings have offered [no] market
value-in-use evidence. Rather, they have focused strictly on the Assessor's
methodology. The Eckerlings have not shown, however, that the Assessor's
methodology resulted in an assessment that failed to accurately reflect their
property's market value-in-use. Accordingly, the Court cannot say that the
Eckerlings presented a prima facie case that their assessment was in error.”)
29. 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. Here, the Petitioner failed to provide any probative evidence
that the assessment should be changed, and the Assessor’s duty to support the
assessment was not triggered.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Curry_Trust_53-005-09-1-4-00021_etc.pdf
