The Petitioner did not relate her
purchase price to March 1, 2011, or explain how it helps prove a more accurate
valuation as of March 1, 2011. Therefore, this evidence does not help to prove
her case. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 471.
The Petitioner complained that
the Respondent and the PTABOA did not view her property. The Board’s proceedings,
however, are de novo. Their failure to view the property did not hinder
the Petitioner’s ability to present relevant evidence and argument during the
Board’s hearing. See Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-4. Therefore, at this point
the failure to view the property is irrelevant.
The Petitioner relied heavily
on the assessed value of nearby properties. Pursuant to Ind. Code §
6-1.1-15-18(c), the assessments of comparable properties may be used as
evidence, but the determinations of comparability must be made using generally
accepted appraisal and assessment practices. Therefore, the proponent must
establish the comparability of the properties being examined. Conclusory statements
that a property is “similar” or “comparable” to another property do not constitute
probative evidence of the comparability. See Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470.
The Petitioner was responsible
for explaining the characteristics of her own property, how those
characteristics compared to those of the purportedly comparable properties, and
how any differences affected the relevant market value-in-use of the
properties. Id. at 471. But in this case the Petitioner failed to offer
any meaningful comparison of the purportedly comparable properties. Accordingly,
the other assessments presented by the Petitioner do not help to prove a more
accurate assessed value for the subject property.
The Petitioner also claimed
her property is over-assessed based on damage caused by heavy rains and
flooding. An influence factor is used to account for characteristics of a
particular parcel of land that are peculiar to that parcel. It is expressed as
a percentage that represents the composite effect of the factor that influences
the value. Guidelines, Glossary at 10. To prevail on the issue of an influence
factor, the taxpayer must present probative evidence that would support an
application of a negative influence factor and a quantification of that
influence factor at the administrative level. Talesnick v. State Bd. of Tax
Comm’rs, 756 N.E.2d 1104, 1108 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001); Phelps Dodge v.
State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 705 N.E.2d 1099 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999). While heavy
rains and flooding may affect the property’s value, the Petitioner offered no
probative evidence to show the extent to which they do so. The Petitioner’s
unsubstantiated conclusions do not constitute probative evidence. Whitley
Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax
Ct. 1998).
