24. In support of its position, Petitioners offered a graph
of ten properties they argue are comparable to the subject property. The
subject property is .85 acres in size. The properties offered as comparable
range in size from .31 acres to 6.74 acres and range in assessed value from
$54,300 to $1,179,500. Pet’r Ex. 2. The properties offered as comparable were
selected for their proximity to the subject property and because they are zoned
similarly to the subject property. Smith testimony. Petitioners assert that
each of the ten properties offered as comparable is assessed at an average of
$4.02 per square foot and the subject property is assessed at $8.03 per square
foot. Smith argument, Pet’r Ex. 2. Petitioners offer no information specific to
the uses or descriptions of the comparable properties or to recent sales of
comparable properties to support their position. Five of the properties offered
by Petitioners as comparable are located in a different neighborhood and
township from the subject property. Pet’r Ex. 3. Petitioners simply argue that
because the subject property is assessed at a higher rate than the assessments of
the properties offered as comparable, then the assessment of the subject
property is per se incorrect.
25. Petitioners argue that the 100% market factor should be
removed from the subject property. Smith testimony. Petitioners argue that the
market factor as applied to the subject property evidences an assessment
process that is not uniform or equal, yet Petitioners offer no information
specific to the use of descriptions of the comparable properties, or to recent
sales of comparable properties to support their contention. Petitioners offer
no information as to market factors applied to the properties presented as comparable
to the subject property. Petitioners offer no information as to market factors applied
to the subject property. Petitioners fail to address the fact that the Property
Record Card indicates the assessor applied a 100% influence factor to the
subject property that, like the market factor, can significantly affect the
assessment of the subject property. Pet. Ex. 2. The information provided is
insufficient for the Board to conclude that these properties are in fact
comparable to the subject property or that the assessed value of the subject
property is incorrect. Conclusory statements are of no probative value unless
accompanied by some explanation relating them to the property’s true tax value.
Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1116 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 1998).
26. Several Tax Court cases affirm that evidence of the
failure of the assessor to adhere to strict application of the assessment
guidelines is not enough for a taxpayer to prevail. Challenging methodology is
not sufficient without probative evidence of a more accurate value. P/A
Builders and Developers, LLC v. Jennings Co. Ass’r, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 2006); Kooshtard Prop. LLC v. White River Twp. Ass’r, 836 N.E.2d 501, 506
(Ind. Tax Ct. 2005); Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Ass’r, 841 N.E.2d 674, 676 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 2006).
27. Accordingly, the Petitioners failed to establish a prima
facie case that there is an error in the 2012 assessment of the subject
property. See Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Ass’r, 841 N.E.2d 674 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006),
(stating that “when a taxpayer chooses to challenge an assessment, he or she
must show that the assessor’s assessed value does not accurately reflect the
property’s market value-in-use.”)
28. The Petitioners also offered the Indiana Board of Tax Review
determination in the case of Love and Kiwala v. Porter County Ass’r, Petition
No. 64-025-07-1-5-00008, in support of their argument that their convenience
store was assessed too high. Smith argument, Pet’r Ex. 5. The taxpayers in Love
presented a ratio study as evidence that seven properties sold in their taxing
district were assessed lower than the taxpayer’s property’s sales-to-assessment
ratio. Id. at 5. “Ratio study” is a generic term for sales-based studies designed
to evaluate assessment performance. It is a study of the relationship between appraised
or assessed values and market value-in-use as reflected by sales or other information.
50 IAC 27-2-10. A ratio study or a value calibration analysis study is valid to
the extent that the sample is sufficiently representative of the population. A
study sample is representative when the distribution of ratios of properties in
the sample reflects the distribution of ratios of properties in the population.
50 IAC 27-5-3(a). Petitioners in the instant case offered no sales-based
studies of the subject property taxing district and offered no ratio study to
support its argument. The facts of the Love case are readily distinguishable
from the case at hand.
29. 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).
