Here the Respondent argues that the property’s value for the 2006 assessment date was $800,000. Schultz testimony. In support of this contention, the Respondent presented an appraisal prepared by Frank Vince that estimated the value of the subject property to be $800,000 as of December 31, 2005. Respondent Exhibit A. The appraiser attested that he prepared the appraisal in accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP). Id. The appraiser used the sales comparison approach, and used comparable properties that sold in 2005. Id. An appraisal performed in conformance with generally recognized appraisal principles is often enough to establish a prima facie case that a property is undervalued. See Meridian Towers East & West v. Washington Township Assessor, 805 N.E.2d 475, 478 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003).
While
generally the 2006 assessment is to reflect the value of the property as of
January 1, 2005, pursuant to 50 IAC 21-3-3(a), local assessing officials “shall
use sales of properties occurring between January 1, 2004, and December 31,
2005, in performing sales ratio studies for the March 1, 2006, assessment
date.” 50 IAC 21-3-3(a). Thus, an appraisal valuing the property as of December
31, 2005, using sales in 2005 must, therefore, also have some probative value.
Therefore, the Board finds that the Respondent raised a prima facie case the
property’s value was $800,000 for the March 1, 2006, assessment. See Hubler
Realty Co. v. Hendricks County Assessor, 938 N.E.2d 311, 314 (Ind. Tax Ct.
2010) (“When a taxpayer elects to challenge its assessment, it assumes a
certain degree of risk, as resolution of a property tax appeal may lead to an
increase in assessment.”)
Once
a party raises a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the opposing party to
rebut or impeach the evidence. See American United Life Insurance Co. v.
Maley, 803 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004).
The
Petitioner’s witness, Mark Kuchler argued that the Respondent’s appraisal is
flawed because the appraiser valued the property as a two-story home with four
bedrooms, when in fact the house is a one-story with two bedrooms. M.
Kuchler testimony. But the appraisal report shows the home as a two-story
with no basement, while the Petitioner’s representative testified that the home
is a one-story with a walkout basement. R. Kuchler testimony. Further,
in response to cross examination, Mr. Kuchler testified that at least part of
the walk-out basement was finished with drywall and carpeting. Thus, the
evidence suggests that the parties were simply describing the home in different
terms; rather than that any significant valuation error was made in the
appraisal.
Mr.
Kuchler also argued that the appraisal was prepared in 2011, implying that it
was somehow unreliable because it was a retrospective appraisal. However, the
Tax Court in Millennium Real Estate Inv., LLC v. Assessor Benton County,
Indiana, 979 N.E.2d 192, 198 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012) found that “absent a
showing of some relevant physical change in a property, the date upon which a
property inspection occurs has no bearing on the probative value of an
appraisal.”
Further,
Mr. Kuchler argued that the appraiser failed to address how the pumping station
located across the street from the subject property, or the view of the lake
being disrupted, affects the value of the Petitioner’s property. M. Kuchler
testimony. However, Mr. Kuchler failed to provide any evidence as to what
effect, if any, the pumping station had on the value of the property. More
importantly, the Petitioner’s witness provided no evidence to show the
Respondent’s appraisal was not a reasonable valuation of the subject property.
Ultimately,
an appraiser’s assumptions and observations are backed by his education,
training, and experience. The appraiser also certifies that he complied with
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 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. Thus, while Mr.
Kuchler’s arguments detract from the credibility of the Respondent’s
appraiser’s valuation, the Petitioner’s witness gave the Board insufficient
evidence to reject the appraiser’s value based on the assumptions and
observations the appraiser made in reaching his value. Thus, the Petitioner
failed to impeach the Respondent’s evidence.
The
Petitioner’s representative also contends that the subject property’s land
should have been assessed like another parcel in the vicinity of the
Petitioner’s property was valued and argues that the assessor improperly
lowered the negative influence factor applied to the property. R. Kuchler
testimony. But a Petitioner fails to prove its case by simply contesting
the methodology used to compute his property’s assessment. Instead, the Petitioner
must show the assessment does not accurately reflect the subject property’s
market value-in-use. See e.g. P/A Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings
County Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (The focus is not on
the methodology used by the assessor, but instead on determining whether the assessed
value is actually correct. Therefore, the taxpayer may not rebut the presumption
merely by showing an assessor’s technical failure to comply strictly with the
Guidelines).
Here
the Respondent presented market value evidence of the property’s value for the 2006
assessment year. Because the Petitioner failed to present any evidence of the market
value-in-use of the property, but instead directed its entire case to arguing
that the assessor erred in assessing the subject property, the Petitioner
failed to rebut or impeach the Respondent’s evidence.
