19. Here, the Petitioner contends the property is over-assessed based on one listing and two sales of vacant property. Petitioner Exhibits 1-3. The Petitioner did not establish the properties were comparable and did not address any differences that might affect the market value-in-use. In fact, as the Respondent pointed out, the properties are not comparable. One property is not suitable for a residence because a septic system cannot be installed, another property is on a different lake, and the last has building restrictions.
20. Additionally, the Petitioner averaged the prices per front foot of the properties and calculated $304 per front foot. The Petitioner proposed a value of $400 per front foot (Petitioner’s cover sheet). Neither of these values supports the Petitioner’s requested values of $9,000 and $4,000.
21. Where the party with the burden has not supported its claims with probative evidence, the opposing party’s duty to offer substantial evidence of the correct assessment 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). Thus, the Board will not review the Respondent’s evidence.