Both parties agreed the 2006
assessment under appeal increased more than 5% from the assessor’s 2005
assessment. Therefore, the Respondent had the burden of proving the 2006
assessment is correct.
...
The Respondent
attempted to use comparable sales and comparable assessments to prove the
existing assessment of the subject property is correct, but failed to successfully
make that case.
The
Respondent’s principle witness, Mr. Kelly, relied on three 2004-2005 sales of
purportedly comparable properties in downtown Nashville to support the assessed
land value of the subject property. Other than showing the location of the
properties on a map and identifying them as commercial, Mr. Kelly failed to
provide the detailed analysis of similarities and differences in the properties
as well as their relative values as required for valid conclusions. See Long
v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (explaining
that conclusory statements about comparability are not probative evidence). He
used the abstraction method to get land values from the total sale prices. He
concluded that “comparable” land was selling at $18.49 to $24.97 per square
foot. Mr. Kelly testified that the land base rate for the subject property was
$22 per square foot. Mr. Kelly did not establish how he determined the land
base rate for the subject property was $22 per square foot. According to Mr.
Kelly, his comparison shows the assessed land value of the subject property is
correct. But actually that kind of unsupported conclusion does not
substantially support the assessed land value or the total assessed value of
the subject property.
The Respondent
and Mr. Kelly also relied on the assessments of two purportedly comparable gas
stations in downtown Nashville to prove the disputed assessment is correct.
This attempted comparative analysis suffers from a similar lack of development.
Only two similarities were mentioned, the properties are gas stations in
Nashville. But Mr. Kelly failed to identify the subject property’s
characteristics, explain how those characteristics compare to the purportedly
comparable properties with specifics about how they are similar. He also needed
to recognize differences between the properties. And he needed to explain how
any differences affect the relative values of the properties. Failing to
present the necessary facts and walk the Board through all the steps of a
meaningful analysis, Mr. Kelly’s attempted assessment comparison does not help
to prove a more accurate assessment for the subject property.
In addition,
nothing in the record indicates that Mr. Kelly’s method of merely calculating
and comparing assessed value per square foot of the buildings satisfies
generally accepted appraisal or assessment practices. In fact, his methodology
appears to be overly simplistic. Even if it is true that the BP assessment
works out to $207 per square foot, the Speedway assessment works out to $233.45
per square foot, and the assessment of the subject property works out to $128
per square foot, that comparison alone does not help to prove what the market
value-in-use of the subject property really is. Similarly, it does not help to
prove the current assessed value is actually correct.
The Respondent
failed to provide probative evidence that the current assessment is correct.
Therefore, the Petitioner’s duty to provide substantial evidence to support a
more accurate 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); Whitley
Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax
Ct. 1998).
In other cases
where the Respondent had the burden to prove the assessment is correct and the
Respondent failed to carry that burden the Board has ordered that the
assessment be returned to the assessed value of the year before. In this case
doing so reduces the assessment to $487,700.
