Monday, December 16, 2013

Board Finds Comparative Analysis and Listings Insufficient Evidence to Support Change in Value of Mobile Home

Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow:

 
c. First, the Petitioner presented a comparative market analysis based on three properties. The analysis indicated a market value of $16,667 for the subject property. To effectively use any kind of comparison approach to value a property, one must establish that the properties are truly comparable. Conclusory statements that properties are “similar” or “comparable” is not sufficient. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470. The Petitioner is “responsible for explaining to the Indiana Board the characteristics of their 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.

d. In this case, the Petitioner failed to identify how the properties in the comparative market analysis were comparable to his property. The broker who prepared the analysis simply provided the high and low listing prices, the high and low selling prices, the median values, the average values, and the days on market of the comparable properties. There was no information at all regarding the characteristics of the comparable properties as they relate to the subject property. Additionally, the cover letter of this document is dated September 21, 2013, and it failed to offer an explanation to relate this analysis to the relevant valuation date of March 1, 2012. Accordingly, the comparative market analysis is not probative. See Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119, (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998) (explaining that unsupported conclusory statements are not probative evidence).

e. Next, the Petitioner presented a listing of mobile homes that appeared in a real estate magazine dated October 2, 2013. Again, he failed to relate that evidence to a March 1, 2012, value. And he failed to value any differences between the subject property and the listed property.

f. Photographs from 2009 show flooding that occurred in the area where the subject property is located; however, the Petitioner failed to prove the impact of the flooding on the value of the property.

http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Blades_91-010-12-1-5-00035.pdf