A. Summary of Rosetta’s case
13. The subject property contains a building that was
constructed as a freight terminal in 1992. The property sold for $290,000 on
May 17, 2010.
14. Rosetta hired Michelle Farrington, an Indiana Licensed
General Appraiser, to appraise the property in connection with Rosetta’s
appeal. Farrington used the sales-comparison and income approaches to analyze
the property’s value. Based on those approaches, she valued the property at
$500,000 as of January 1, 2007. Farrington certified that she prepared her
appraisal in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice. Farrington testimony; Pet’r Ex. 6.4
15. Rosetta asked for an assessment of $500,000 in
accordance with Farrington’s appraisal. Rosetta further argued that the
$500,000 assessment should carry forward to 2009 and 2010, because the Assessor
had assessed the property for the same amount ($1,014,400) in all three years.
For support, Rosetta pointed to Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-1(e), which provides, in
relevant part: “A change in an assessment made as a result of a notice for review
filed by a taxpayer… remains in effect from the assessment date for which the change
is made until the next assessment date for which the assessment is changed
under this article.”
16. The Assessor is wrong in claiming that Rosetta’s
voluntary withdrawal of its appeal for 2009 operated as a waiver of its claim
that any change stemming from this appeal should carry forward to 2009 and
2010. Rosetta’s withdrawal of its Form 131 petition for 2009 is irrelevant to
the question of whether a decision by the Board reducing the 2008 assessment
carries forward. Bickel argument.
B. Summary of the Assessor’s case
17. Based on Farrington’s appraisal, the Assessor agrees
that the subject property’s assessment for 2008 should be reduced to $500,000.
Agostino argument.
18. The Assessor, however, disagrees with Rosetta’s claim
that the change for 2008 carries forward to 2009 and 2010. Rosetta withdrew its
2009 appeal, explaining: “we have since learned that the appeal was intended to
be only for the 2008 assessment….” Bd. Ex. A. The doctrines of waiver and
estoppel therefore preclude Rosetta from claiming that the reduction for 2008
should carry forward. Agostino argument.
Discussion
19. Through Farrington’s appraisal, Rosetta offered
probative evidence that the subject property’s true tax value for the 2008
assessment was $500,000. The Assessor agreed. Rosetta is therefore entitled to
have the property’s March 1, 2008 assessment reduced to $500,000.
20. Although Rosetta argued that the 2008 assessment should
carry forward to 2009 and 2010, those assessments are not before the Board in
this appeal. The Board therefore makes no finding on that issue.
