The subject parcel’s assessment increased from $1,600 in 2008 to $155,500 in 2009. The Assessor claims that she increased the parcel’s assessment because the parcel no longer qualified for the “developer’s discount.” The Sistevarises, on the other hand, claim that the parcel continued to be eligible for the developer’s discount.
...
The Assessor has not alleged that anyone began building a structure on the parcel or that a building permit had been issued. Thus, the dispositive question is whether the Sistevarises were land developers. To qualify as a land developer, a person must hold land for sale in the ordinary course of the person’s trade or business. Mr. Sistevaris claims that he and Ms. Sistevaris qualified as land developers because they bought the parcel as part of a joint venture with Sistevaris Builders to develop the parcel, build a spec home, and then re-sell the parcel. And Sistevaris Builders holds land for sale in the ordinary course of its business. Although Mr. Sistevaris did not offer much detail, he did testify regarding the existence and purpose of the joint venture and offered at least some evidence, albeit unsworn and somewhat self-serving, that Sistevaris Builders holds land for sale in the course of its business. Thus, the Sistevarises made a prima facie showing, if only barely, that they qualified as land developers under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-12. Indeed, the Assessor’s witness, Phyl Olinger, agreed that the investors in a joint venture to develop a property normally would be entitled to the developer’s discount.
The Assessor did little to impeach or rebut the Sistevarises’ admittedly thin evidence about their status as land developers. She did not cross-examine Mr. Sistevaris about the nature of the joint venture, the nature of Sistevaris Builders’ participation in the joint venture, or the frequency with which Sistevaris Builders actually held land for sale in the course of its business. Instead, the Assessor mainly relied on the fact that Sistevaris Builders had been administratively dissolved. But the company was not dissolved until July 7, 2009—more than three months after the March 1, 2009 assessment date under appeal. And the Assessor offered nothing to show the basis for that dissolution. On those facts, the administrative dissolution does little or nothing to impeach Mr. Sistevaris’s testimony that he and Sistevaris Builders were engaged in a joint venture to develop and sell the subject parcel. The same is true for the Assessor’s vague testimony about Sistevaris Builders not having been an “established builder” in Steuben County at the time the PTABOA made its determination.
Thus, the Assessor should have based the subject parcel’s March 1, 2009 assessment on the same classification as its previous assessments. Unfortunately, the parties did not offer much evidence to show how the property was classified and assessed in earlier years. They both offered property record cards showing that the parcel was valued as a platted residential lot as of March 1, 2009. Although the card has columns showing that the parcel was assessed for $2,000 from 2002 to 2005 and for $1,600 from 2006 to 2008, there is little to show the mechanics of how those assessments were computed or how the property was classified in those years. The card, however, does contain a reference to “AG LD” above the column for the 2005 assessment. See Pet’rs Ex. 131B; Resp’t Ex. 4. The card also contains the following notation: “Previous parcel id: 036020214692 INFO: TO PLAT 1/16/2002 D/R 02-01-686 ANNEXATION ORD#2003-04, 11/20/03, 0311-0689.” Id.
Based on those notations, the Board infers that the subject parcel was subdivided and platted out of a larger agricultural tract in 2002. Under the developer’s discount statute, however, the Assessor continued to classify and assess the land as agricultural acreage through 2008 while Hamilton Lake Investments, LLC—an entity that the parties agree is a land developer—held the parcel. Because the transfer to the Sistevarises did not permit the Assessor to reclassify the parcel, she should have assessed the parcel as agricultural land on March 1, 2009, as well.
