Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow:
The Respondent identified sales of three shopping centers with prices of $117.65, $98.82, and $69.33 per square foot and then attempted to use a sales comparison approach to support the assessment. But in order to use comparable sales effectively, the proponent must establish the comparability of the properties being examined. Simple conclusory statements that property is “similar” or “comparable” are not probative evidence. Long,821 N.E.2d at 470. The Respondent needed to establish the characteristics of the Petitioners’ property, how those characteristics compared to those of the purported comparable properties, and how any differences affected the market value-in-use. Id. at
471. The Respondent offered no evidence or analysis of the specific features of the
purportedly comparable shopping centers. Similarly, the Respondent offered no evidence
or analysis about how any differences affected the relative values of the shopping centers. The Respondent failed to provide a meaningful comparison of the properties. Consequently, those selling prices do not help to prove an accurate valuation for the subject property.1
The Respondent also attempted to prove the value of the subject property with the income approach. According to the Respondent, the Petitioner claimed the rent from the subject property was only $9 per square foot, but actually the income should be figured at a rate
of $11 per square foot, which is more probable for the Mooresville area. The Respondent relied on evidence related to one other property identified as a neighborhood shopping center (Respondent Exhibits 7, 8, 9) to support $11 per square foot. Again, the Respondent provided virtually no meaningful facts or analysis for comparing these properties beyond the fact they are neighborhood shopping centers in Mooresville. Therefore, the fact that space in this other property is available for leasing at $11 per square foot is meaningless. This kind of conclusory comparison is not probative evidence.
In addition, the Respondent offered an “IncomeWorks Evaluation Report” that purports
to apply a direct capitalization income approach to the subject property. The Respondent explained that IncomeWorks is a company that gathers sales and lease information specifically for each county. The IncomeWorks Evaluation Report was generated from its software. This one-page document indicates it was prepared by Robin Davidson. There is no indication in the record of who this person is, or what his/her qualifications might be. This Report indicates it used rental income of $11.63 per square foot, but contains no substantial basis for that conclusory number. Similarly, the Report allows 16.83% for vacancy, $3.92 per square foot for expenses, and used a capitalization rate of 9.50%. The record contains no substantial basis for any of these numbers, either. And the record contains no evidence that the Report was prepared according to generally accepted appraisal principles. Therefore, the Report has no probative value. It does not substantially support the assessed value that is on the subject property for 2011.
Because the Respondent did not offer probative evidence to support assessment, she failed to meet her burden of proof. Ordinarily, that failure would require that the 2011 assessment to be reduced to the 2010 assessed value, which was $836,200. But during
the hearing the Petitioners claimed the value should be $850,000. According to the
Petitioners, this figure is their current asking price for the property and an amount that
would be a fair 2011 assessed value. Under these circumstances, the Board will not make
the assessed value less than the Petitioners claimed.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Newcomer_55-005-11-1-4-00005.pdf
