The Respondent’s only evidence was a print-out of the “screen card” for the subject property record card. Respondent Exhibit A. The Respondent presented testimony that merely disputed Petitioner’s appraisal. Metz testimony. The Respondent obliquely suggested that its “price per square foot” was arrived at by “ignoring the retail sales” from the Petitioner’s appraisal. Id. But the Respondent failed to walk the Board through its calculations. The Respondent fails to establish a prima facie case that the assessment is correct. Where the party with the burden has not support 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).
The Board finds the Respondent failed to establish that the subject property’s assessment for 2009 was correct, and the value must be returned to the value for 2008 (as corrected by the PTABOA), which is $73,670.
Because the Petitioner has successfully appealed the 2009 assessment, Indiana Code section 6-1.1-15-17.2 applies to the 2010 assessment, and the Respondent has the burden of proof. The Respondent’s evidence and arguments for the 2010 assessment are the same as for the 2009 assessment. For the same reasons indicated above, the Board finds that the Respondent failed to establish that the subject property’s assessment for 2010 is correct, and the value must be returned to the value of the 2009 assessment (as corrected by the Board), which is $73,670.