Issue 1: Did the Calverts timely appeal the 2012 assessment?
24. Although a taxpayer has the right to challenge his
property’s assessment, he must comply with statutory requirements for doing so
in a timely manner. See Williams Industries v. State Board of Tax
Commissioners, 648 N.E.2d 713, 718 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995)
25. Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1 establishes the deadline for
filing an appeal at the local level:
(a) A taxpayer may obtain a review by the county board of a
county or township official's action with respect to … the following:
(1) The assessment of the taxpayer's tangible property.
…
(b) At the time that notice of an action referred to in
subsection (a) is given to the taxpayer, the taxpayer shall also be informed in
writing of:
(1) the opportunity for a review under this section…; and
(2) the procedures the taxpayer must follow in order to
obtain a review under this section.
(c) In order to obtain a review of an assessment … effective
for the assessment date to which the notice referred to in subsection (b)
applies, the taxpayer must file a notice in writing with the county or township
official referred to in subsection (a) not later than forty-five (45) days
after the date of the notice referred to in subsection (b).
(d) A taxpayer may obtain a review by the county board of
the assessment of the taxpayer's tangible property effective for an assessment
date for which a notice of assessment is not given as described in subsection
(b). To obtain the review, the taxpayer must file a notice in writing with the
township assessor, or the county assessor if the township is not served by a
township assessor. The right of a taxpayer to obtain a review under this
subsection for an assessment date for which a notice of assessment is not given
does not relieve an assessing official of the duty to provide the taxpayer with
the notice of assessment as otherwise required by this article. The notice to
obtain a review must be filed not later than the later of:
(1) May 10 of the year; or (2) forty-five (45) days after
the date of the tax statement mailed by the county treasurer, regardless of
whether the assessing official changes the taxpayer's assessment.
I.C. § 6-1.1-15-1; see also, I.C. § 6-1.1-15-13 (providing
that if notice is not otherwise given, a taxpayer’s receipt of the tax bill is
his notice for purposes of determining his right to appeal).
26. Thus, the Calverts’ Form 130 petition was timely only if
Mr. Calvert attempted to file it no later than 45 days after the Calverts were
first given notice of their property’s 2012 assessment. On its face, the
Carroll County Treasurer issued a tax statement for the 2012 assessment only 25
days before Mr. Calvert attempted to file the Form 130 petition. See Tibero
Allergy Asthma Immunology of Rochester, 664 F.3d 35, 37 (2nd Cir. 2011) (“There
is a presumption that a notice provided by a government agency was mailed on
the date shown on the notice.”). If, as Mr. Calvert testified, the tax
statement was the Calverts’ first notice of the subject property’s 2012
assessment, their appeal was timely.
27. The Assessor, however, argued that the Calverts were
notified of the assessment in August 2012 when Form 11 notices were mailed. For
support, she testified that the Calvert’s Form 11 notice had been mailed to the
same address contained on their tax statement and that the notice had not been
returned. But the Assessor did not claim to have personally mailed any of the
Form 11 notices, much less the Calverts’ notice, nor did she offer any evidence
to show that whoever was actually responsible for those duties followed routine
business practices in mailing the Calverts’ Form 11 notice. See Indiana Sugars,
683 N.E.2d 1383, 1386 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997) (quoting F&F Construction Co. v. Royal
Globe Insurance Co., 423 N.E.2d 654 (Ind. App. Ct. 1981) (“Proof consisting of testimony
from one with direct and actual knowledge of the particular message in question
is required to establish proof of mailing.”); see also, U-Haul Co. of Indiana,
Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 896 N.E.2d 1253, 1257 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2008)
(finding that designated evidence showing the Department of Revenue had
conformed to its routine business practices supported a reasonable inference
that it had timely mailed an assessment). The Assessor did not even offer a
copy of the Form 11 notice purportedly mailed to the Calverts.
28. Based on the evidence before it, the Board finds that
the tax statement was the Calverts’ first notice of the subject property’s 2012
assessment. Their appeal was therefore timely.
29. Having found that the Calverts timely filed their
appeal, the Board now turns to the merits.
Issue 2: Did the Assessor prove that the subject property’s
assessment is correct?
…
35. Here, the Assessor justified the increase in the subject
property’s assessment between 2011 and 2012 on grounds that she reclassified
all wooded properties that were not part of a farm. She changed the
classification for those properties from agricultural land to a mixture of homesite,
excess residential, and excess agricultural land, and then applied the base
rates for those classifications from what she described as the county’s land
order. But the relevant statutes and regulations require land devoted to
agriculture to be assessed under the DLGF’s rules for assessing agricultural
land. See I.C. § 6-1.1-4-13(a) (providing that “land shall be assessed as
agricultural land only when it is devoted to agricultural use.”); 2011 MANUAL
ch. 2 at 78 (“[A]ll land utilized for agricultural purposes is valued as
agricultural land. . . .”) (emphasis in original). The Assessor offered nothing
to show how the Calverts used the subject property, much less to show that they
used it for something other than agriculture. Indeed, the little evidence in
the record that addresses that question—Mr. Calvert’s testimony that his family
had used the land to produce a timber crop for 170 years and did not use it for
hunting or other recreation—supports a contrary finding. The Assessor therefore
failed to meet her burden of proving that the 2012 assessment was correct.
36. Even if the Board were to assume that the Calverts used
the property for something other than agriculture, the Assessor still failed to
show what the property’s market value-in-use was. Although her witness, Ms.
Becker, pointed to sales of other wooded parcels in Carroll County, that sales
data was not probative. Seven of the sales occurred more than 30 months before
the March 1, 2012 valuation date at issue in this appeal, and Ms. Becker’s
attempt to relate those sales to the valuation date was unconvincing. Those sales
therefore lack probative value. See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d
466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (finding that an insurance policy and appraisal
lacked probative value where taxpayers failed to explain how that evidence
related to their property’s value as of the relevant valuation date). In any
case, Ms. Becker did little to compare any of the sold properties to the
subject property or to explain how any relevant differences affected their
values. See Long 821 N.E.2d at 471 (holding that taxpayer’s sales data lacked
probative value where they failed to explain how the characteristics of any purportedly
comparable properties compared to their property or how any differences affected
the properties’ values); see also, Blackbird Farms Apts., LP v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t
Fin., 765 N.E.2d 711, 715 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2002) (holding that taxpayer failed to establish
the comparability of parcels of land where, among other things, taxpayer did
not compare topography and accessibility).
