Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow:
Here, the Petitioner’s representative argues it was an error to value improvements to the Petitioner’s property. Lei testimony. According to Ms. Lei, the assessor should only assess improvements located “on top of the land.” Id. The Guidelines state that mobile home parks shall be valued using commercial and industrial yard structures. GUIDELINES, ch. 7 at 2. According to the Guidelines, an assessor shall use the cost schedules to determine the base rate of mobile home parks per site. GUIDELINES, ch. 7 at 20. “Cost schedules for these structures are diverse and specific criteria are described to determine the base rate for each type.” Id. Some of the site costs included in the Guidelines are engineering, site grading, patios, walks, sewers, water, electric, landscaping and recreation. Id. Barring probative evidence to the contrary, the Board finds that the method of valuing the mobile home park chosen by the assessor to value the Petitioner’s mobile home park was reasonable.
The Petitioner’s representative also contends that the assessor erred when she applied the grade and failed to adjust the 50% depreciation on the Petitioner’s mobile home park in 2011. Lei testimony; Roland argument. However, the Petitioner failed to show how the property was assessed for any year other than 2011. More importantly, a Petitioner fails to sufficiently rebut the presumption that an assessment is correct by simply contesting the method used to compute the assessment. Eckerling v. Wayne Township Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 678 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); P/A Builders & Developers v. Jennings County Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (recognizing that the current assessment system is a departure from the past practice in Indiana, stating that “under the old system, a property’s assessed value was correct as long as the assessment regulations were applied correctly. The new system, in contrast, shifts the focus from mere methodology to determining whether the assessed value is actually correct.”).
Finally, the Petitioner’s representative testified that the Petitioner purchased the subject property in 2011. Lei testimony. And, in fact, the property record card shows that the property sold on July 8, 2010, for $609,141 and again on August 31, 2011, for $440,000. Respondent Exhibit 2. Thus, even if the Petitioner’s arguments could be seen as raising a prima facie case that the subject property was assessed too high, that case was rebutted by the evidence that the property was purchased for a far higher amount than the property was assessed for in 2011.
