Here, the subject property’s
assessment increased from $43,500 in 2009 to $142,300 in 2010, clearly an
increase of over 5%. While it can be argued that the Petitioner is only contesting
the land value, the land assessment increased at an even greater rate from $11,200
in 2009 to $120,800 in 2010. As discussed above, the increase stemmed mainly from
the Respondent’s decision to re-classify the land, and not from any addition or
physical change to the property. Thus, the Respondent has the burden of proving
that the 2010 assessment is correct.
…
36. Here, the Respondent, through
her witness Ms. Relos-Penrose, mainly argued that the subject property’s land
is now correctly classified as lakefront rather than channel-front. But in
making this argument, Ms. Relos-Penrose is relying on the methodology in computing
the assessment. Just as it is not enough for a Petitioner to simply challenge the
methodology used to compute the assessment, it is not enough for a Respondent
to rely on methodology to defend an assessment. See Eckerling v. Wayne Twp.
Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). Instead, Ms. Relos-Penrose
was required to rely on market-based evidence to prove that the assessed value
reflects the property’s market value-in-use, which she failed to do.
37. Ms. Relos-Penrose did attempt
to prove, however, the subject property’s market value-in-use by offering sales
comparisons analysis for three purportedly comparable properties. The
Respondent recognizes that one can estimate the value of a subject property by analyzing
the sales of comparable properties. A party offering such evidence must show that
the properties are generally comparable to each other, and also must show how
any relevant differences affect the relative values. See Long, 821
N.E.2d at 470-71 (holding that, in applying the sales-comparison approach, the
taxpayers needed to explain how any differences between their property and the
properties to which they sought to compare it affected the properties’ relevant
market values-in-use). The problem here is that Ms. Relos-Penrose did little to
compare her purported comparable properties to the subject property. Further,
Ms. Relos-Penrose failed to provide any qualitative or quantitative analysis of
any differences that existed between the subject property and her purported comparables.
Therefore, her sale comparison lacked the type of analysis contemplated by Long.
38. Because the Respondent did
not offer probative evidence of the property’s market value-in-use, she failed
to meet her burden of proving that the assessment is correct. Here, the Petitioner
did not request a specific value for the subject property. Therefore, the
subject property’s 2010 assessment must be reduced to its previous year’s level
of $43,500.
