b. The Petitioners’ evidence consisted of testimony about various serious condition problems and photographs supporting that testimony. But Ms. Hettle did not offer any probative evidence to quantify the effect of those problems on the market value-in-use. This evidence is not enough to make a case for changing the assessment.
c. Ms. Hettle testified that she probably could not get $4,000 for the manufactured home. Ms. Hettle did not offer any probative evidence to support her opinion on this point. Such conclusory statements do nothing to establish the actual market value-in-use of the property and they are of no probative value. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.wd 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
d. The Petitioners failed to make a prima facie case. Therefore, the Respondent’s duty to support the assessment with substantial evidence was not triggered. Lacy Diversified Indus. V. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215, 1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003).