34. For assessment year 2009, Petitioner filed his Form 130
with the PTABOA on February 20, 2009. There is nothing in the record to
indicate the PTABOA acted on his request for review of the 2009 assessment. If
a PTABOA does not act on a petition for review of assessment by the local
assessing official within 180 days, the taxpayer can file his petition directly
with the Board. I.C. § 6-1.1-15-1. The Form 131 filed with the Board listed the
2009 assessment of the subject property as being under appeal. The Board finds
that since the PTABOA failed to timely respond to the Form 130 filed by Petitioner
on February 20, 2009, the 2009 assessment of the subject property is properly
before the Board.
35. For assessment year 2010, Petitioner filed his Form 131
on April 16, 2012, 59 days after the Notification of Final Assessment
Determination was issued on February 17, 2012. In order to obtain a review by
the Board, a party must file their Form 131 not later than forty-five days
after the date of the notice of the determination by the PTABOA. Petitioner
testified that he might have been out of the country or undergoing a medical procedure
at that time that might have delayed him from filing the petition earlier. Petitioner
offered no documentation or specific testimony to that effect. Petitioner’s appeal
of the 2010 assessment is dismissed as untimely.
36. For assessment year 2011, Petitioner filed his Form 131
with the Board prior to filing his Form 130 with the PTABOA. Because he failed
to file a separate petition for that tax year, Petitioner’s appeal is not
properly before the Board. However, as more than 180 days have passed since
Petitioner filed his Form 130 for 2011, and the PTABOA has not taken action,
Petitioner may file a separate petition for 2011.
37. Thus, only the 2009 assessment is before the Board. Per
the Property Record Card, in 2009 the subject property was assessed at $958,000
for the improvements and $63,200 for the land for a total assessment of
$1,021,200. Resp’t Ex. 3.
38. An appraisal completed in conformance with the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice is often the most effective method
to rebut the presumption that an assessment is correct. O’Donnell v. Dep’t of
Local Gov’t Fin. 854 N.E.2d 90, 94 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); Kooshtard Property VI,
LLC v. White River Township Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 501, 506 N.6 (Ind. Tax Court
2005). Petitioner’s appraiser offered no opinion of value and no opinion of
completeness for the property in 2009. Krause testimony.
39. Petitioner presented an analysis of three properties
offered as comparable to the subject property. Pet’r Ex. A-1. The grid shows
the subject property is .14 acres in size and the properties listed as
comparable range in size from .31 acres to 7.32 acres. Petitioner’s comparison
of the subject property with the comparable properties offered lacks probative
value. A party offering such evidence must show that the properties are generally
comparable to each other, and also must show how any relevant differences
affect the relative values. See Long,
Supra 470-471 (holding that, in applying the sales-comparison approach, the
taxpayers must explain how any differences between the properties affect the
properties’ relative market value-in-use). Petitioner failed to explain or
account for any differences in the properties, and how those differences affect
the respective values.
40. Petitioner also presented a document titled “Calculation
of Land Value for Dixie Way North Area” that ostensibly compares the value of
the subject property’s land with the land values of three motels ranging in
size from four to eight acres and ranging in value from $91,800 to $321,600.
Pet’r Ex. B. Again, Petitioner failed to explain or account for any differences
in the parcels and how those differences compare with the land of the subject
property. See Long, Supra 470-471. Petitioner’s contentions as to the value of the
subject property consist largely of conclusory statements. Conclusory
statements do not constitute probative evidence. Whitley Products, Inc. v.
State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998. Petitioner
has failed to present a prima facie case for reduction of the assessment.
41. Respondent conceded at the hearing that the improvements
to the subject property were only 60% complete rather than 100% complete as
Respondent had previously determined. Respondent also testified that, using the
appropriate tax tables, the total cost of the improvements to Petitioner’s
property is $903,833. Respondent calculates that 60% of $903,833 results in an
assessment of $543,300 for the improvements for 2009. Mandrici testimony.
