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).