In the case at hand, the parties agreed that the Petitioners’
property’s assessment increased from $301,500 in 2009 to $370,700 in 2010,
which is an increase of 23%. The Assessor, therefore, has the burden of proving
the assessment was correct for 2010.
…
Here, the Respondent argues that the Petitioner’s property’s
assessment was correct for 2010 based on the property’s market value-in-use. In
support of this contention, the Respondent presented a valuation opinion
prepared by Mr. Jorczak, the county’s director of commercial operations. In his
valuation opinion, Mr. Jorczak testified that he used three properties in the
Petitioners’ property’s neighborhood and adjusted those sales “based on the
various attributes of the property.” However, the only support Mr. Jorczak
provided for those adjustments was that he followed “the guidelines put forth
by the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance.”
While Mr. Jorczak’s assertions may not differ significantly
from those made by a certified appraiser in an appraisal report, the
appraiser’s assertions are backed by his education, training, and experience.
The appraiser also typically certifies that he complied with the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Thus, the Board, as the
trier-of-fact, can infer that the appraiser used objective data, where
available, to quantify his adjustments. And where objective data was not
available, the Board can infer that the appraiser relied on his education,
training and experience to estimate a reliable quantification. Mr. Jorczak,
however, is not a certified appraiser; he did not establish that he has any
particular expertise in applying generally accepted appraisal principles; and
he did not certify that he complied with USPAP in performing his valuation
analysis. Consequently, Mr. Jorczak’s sales comparison approach lacks probative
value in this case. See Inland Steel Co. v. State Board of Tax
Commissioners, 739 N.E.2d 201, 220 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000) (holding that an
appraiser’s opinion lacked probative value where the appraiser failed to
explain what a producer price index was, how it was calculated or that its use
as a deflator was a generally accepted appraisal technique)
Because the assessor failed to meet its burden of proof, the
subject property’s March 1, 2010, assessment must be reduced to its previous year’s
level of $82,700 for the land and $218,800 for the improvements, for a total
assessed value of $301,500.
