Indiana assesses real property on the basis of its true tax value, which the Department of Local Government Finance (“DLGF”) has defined as the property’s market value-in-use. As the Indiana General Assembly has recognized, one way to show a property’s market value-in-use is to offer evidence of comparable properties’ assessments:
(a) This section applies to an appeal to which this chapter applies, including any review by the board of tax review or the tax court.
(b) This section applies to any proceeding pending or commenced after June 30, 2012.(c) To accurately determine market-value-in-use, a taxpayer or an assessing official may:
(1) in a proceeding concerning residential property, introduce evidence of the assessments of comparable properties located in the same taxing district or within two (2) miles of a boundary of the taxing district; and
(2) in a proceeding concerning property that is not residential property, introduce evidence of the assessments of any relevant, comparable property.
However, in a proceeding described in subdivision (2), preference shall be given to comparable properties that are located in the same taxing district or within two (2) miles of a boundary of the taxing district. The determination of whether properties are comparable shall be made using generally accepted appraisal and assessment practices.
I.C. § 6-1.1-15-18 (emphasis added).
But Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-18 does not automatically make evidence of other properties’ assessments probative. Instead, the party relying on those assessments must apply generally accepted appraisal and assessment practices to show that the properties are comparable to the property under appeal. Conclusory statements that a property is “similar” or “comparable” to another property do not suffice. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470 (addressing taxpayers’ attempt to use sales and listing data to prove their property’s market value-in-use). Instead, one must identify the characteristics of the property under appeal and explain how those characteristics compare to the characteristics of the other properties. Id. at 471. Similarly, one must explain how any differences between the other properties and the property under appeal affect the properties’ relative market values-in-use. Id.
Mr. Smith did little to compare his purportedly comparable properties to the subject property. He mainly relied on the fact that they were all used as bowling alleys. But a property’s use is only one factor to consider in determining comparability. To the extent Mr. Smith claimed that the other bowling alleys were comparable to the subject bowling alley in terms of design, age, condition and size, he made only conclusory assertions. Mr. Smith similarly failed to explain how any relevant differences between the subject property and his purportedly comparable properties, such as differences in location, wall height, and the presence of abnormal obsolescence, affected the properties’ relative values. Mr. Smith’s comparison data and resulting valuation conclusion therefore have little or no probative value.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/MSW_Enterprises_LLP-Sutherland_02-070-11-1-4-00024_to_26.pdf
