c. The Petitioners and the Respondent agree that the income
approach to value using the GRM is the best indication of value for the
properties. Both parties also agree to the amount of gross rent for each of the
properties.
d. The Petitioners however contend that the GRM of 85 is not
correct and that a lower GRM should be used for the subject properties.
e. In support of this position, the Petitioners presented
financial data of two comparable rental properties. The property located at 278
North Main Street in Scottsburg was purchased for $17,500 and currently rents
for $600 per month. The GRM for this property is 29. The other rental property
is also located in Scottsburg at 392 North Washington. The owner was asking
$62,000 for this property at the time of the hearing and the monthly rent is
$1,105. The GRM for this property is 59. The Petitioners contended the GRM for
the subject properties should be closer to the GRM of these properties.
f. To effectively use any kind of comparison approach to
value a property, one must establish that the properties truly are comparable.
Conclusory statements that properties are “similar” or “comparable” are not
sufficient. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470.
g. In these appeals, the Petitioners were “responsible for
explaining to the Indiana Board the characteristics of their own property, how
those characteristics compared to those of the purportedly comparable
properties, and how any differences affected the relevant market value-in-use
of the properties.” Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471. Except for selecting two
properties located in the same city as the Petitioners’ property, the Petitioners’
provided no comparison of the properties’ features.
h. Additionally, although the sale for the property located
at 392 North Washington Street occurred in December 2000, Petitioners failed to
sufficiently relate this sale price to the March 1, 2011, valuation date.
Instead she merely offered testimony that, at the time of hearing, the property
was on the market for $62,000 and currently remains on the market with an
asking price of $60,000.
i. The Petitioners did not explain how one property with a
GRM of 29 is comparable to another property that has a GRM of 59. In fact, she
did not identify the GRM that the Petitioners were proposing or identify the
proposed correct true tax value of any of the subject properties. Therefore,
the alleged comparable properties are not probative evidence for an accurate
assessed valuation of the subject properties.
j. When taxpayers fail to provide probative evidence
supporting their 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 Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax
Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
k. While the Petitioners failed to make a prima facie case
for reducing the subject property’s assessment, the Assessor conceded that the
property located at 297 S. Main Street is worth $116,700, and the properties at
368 E. Jefferson Street and 367 E. Davis Street are worth $214,600 (rounded to
the nearest $100) for 2011. The Board accepts the Assessor’s concession.
