Thursday, April 3, 2014

Board Finds Purchase Price Not Sufficiently Related to Valuation Date to be Probative of Property's Value

Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow:

c. The Petitioners contended the purchase price and a new roof costing $2,000 indicates the market value of the subject property should be $40,000.

d. The Petitioners bought the property on June 06, 2008, for $37,700. His purchase was over three years before the assessment and valuation date of March 1, 2012. The purchase price of the property can be a good way to prove an accurate market value-in-use for assessment purposes. Here, however, the Petitioners failed to demonstrate the relevance of the purchase date to the market value-in-use as of the assessment date.

e. The Petitioners claimed the improvement identified as 3446 Red Bud Lane was the only improvement on this property that was rentable on the assessment date. The Petitioners also presented fifteen photos of the improvements to support his claim that all the improvements were in poor condition—referring to items such as broken furnaces, ceilings that leak, rotted floors and windows, smoke damage, damaged cabinets, and frozen water pipes. But he failed to quantify the effect the poor condition of the improvements had on the market value of the property.

f. The Petitioners alleged the property needed $20,000 of improvements to make it worth $60,000. This opinion of value is not supported by evidence or facts. The Petitioners must sufficiently explain the connection between the evidence and Petitioners’ assertions in order for it to be considered material to the facts. ‘Conclusory statements’ are of no value to the State in its evaluation of the evidence. See Heart City Chrysler v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 714 N.E. 2d 329 (Ind. Tax 1999) (stating that conclusory statements are statements, allegations, or assertions that are unsupported by any detailed factual evidence).

g. 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, 704 N.E.2d at 1119.

h. While the Petitioners failed to make a prima facie case for reducing the subject property’s assessment, the Assessor conceded the property was worth only $56,400 for 2012. The Board accepts the Assessor’s concession.