36. In this case, the Respondent had the burden of proving
that the 2006 assessment was correct. At most, the Respondent tried to address
the subject property’s value by offering sales evidence for three other
residential properties from the same neighborhood. However, for sales data to
be probative, the properties that sold must be sufficiently comparable to the
property under appeal. Conclusory statements that a property is “similar” or
“comparable” to another property are not sufficient. See Long at 470. Instead,
one must identify the characteristics of the property under appeal and explain how
those characteristics compare to those of the sold properties and how any
relevant differences affect the properties’ relative values.
37. The Respondent offered purportedly comparable property
sales with no related analysis. Other than describing a few general details
about the sold properties, the record lacks evidence indicating how the
properties are similar to the subject property or how they differ. Moreover,
the Respondent did not show how any differences between the properties affected
their relative values. She primarily relied on the fact that the sales were in
the same neighborhood and averaged out to be more than the assessed value of the
subject property. Thus, her sales comparison evidence lacked the type of
analysis required by Long. The Board therefore finds that the Respondent’s
evidence is insufficient to prove that the 2006 assessment is an accurate
reflection of market value-in-use.
38. Because the
Respondent did not offer probative evidence of the property’s market value-in-use,
the Respondent failed to meet the burden of proving that the assessment was correct.
The assessment for 2006 must revert to the prior year’s assessment of $80,400. That,
however, does not end the Board’s inquiry. The Petitioner requested the assessment
be lowered to $48,577. Thus, the Petitioner has the burden of proving that it is
entitled to any additional reduction. The Board therefore turns to the
Petitioner’s evidence.
39. The bulk of the Petitioner’s evidence consists of
photographs and testimony regarding the condition of subject property and its
surrounding neighborhood. Those photographs show significant deferred
maintenance to the subject property and two neighboring properties. The
property record card indicates the subject property was in average condition,
but the evidence presented does not support that rating. But determining a condition
rating for a property is a subjective exercise, and just one of the many steps outlined
in the Guidelines for determining a correct assessment. Whether one step of the
Guidelines was properly applied does not directly answer the essential question
of the property’s market value-in-use.
40. The Tax Court has held that one cannot make a case based
on whether the Guidelines were applied properly. Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Ass’r,
841 N.E.2d 674, 677 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). To successfully make his case, the
Petitioner needed to show the assessment does not accurately reflect market
value-in-use. Id.; see also P/A Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings
County Ass’r, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (explaining the proper
focus is not on methodology, but rather, on what the correct value actually
is). Here, the Petitioner failed to prove a lower value that would be more
accurate.
41. The Petitioner also argues that an area 300 feet from
the subject property is in a brownfield. The Petitioner failed to offer any
probative evidence on how this fact affects the market value-in-use of the
subject property.
42. That being said, the Petitioner offered testimony of
objective errors in the assessment. Specifically, a swimming pool, pool deck,
and hot tub belonging to a neighboring parcel were erroneously assessed to the
subject parcel. These assertions were not contested by the Respondent. Thus,
the Board orders those items be removed from the subject property’s assessment
and property record card.
