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.