c) The Thieles point to specific
characteristics that they claim detract from value. But simply showing the
existence of conditions that affect value is not enough. They needed to offer
probative evidence to show market value-in-use.
d) In an attempt to supply that
evidence, the Thieles offered Mr. Stock’s reports. Those reports lack probative
value. First, the reports estimate each parcel’s site value for the year 2008—three
years before the 2011 valuation date at issue in these appeals. And the Thieles
offered nothing to relate those reports to the appropriate valuation date. Second,
Mr. Stock did not certify that he complied with USPAP and his reports are almost
entirely conclusory. Although Mr. Stock indicated that he relied on sales and listings
for vacant parcels with characteristics similar to the Thieles’ parcels, he offered
no information about those comparable properties or about any of the judgments
that he made in valuing the Thieles’ parcels.
e) Finally, the Thieles took
exception both to the way that the Assessor reflected the Board’s
determinations for the 2008 assessment year on the property record cards and to
the fact that the Board-determined values did not carry forward for later
years. As to the first point, it is not clear what, if any, relief the Thieles
seek. Regardless, the Board will not order the Assessor to change the format of
the property record cards. As to their second point—not carrying the Board’s
determination for 2008 forward to later years—the general rule is that each
assessment year stands alone. Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs,
747 N.E.2d 645, 650 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (citing Glass Wholesalers, Inc. v.
State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 568 N.E.2d 1116, 1124 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1991)). The
Thieles have the burden of proof in the appeals currently before the Board.
They have not shown how the Board’s determinations for the 2008 tax year relate
to market values-in-use as of the relevant 2011 valuation date that applies to
these appeals.
f) Because the Thieles failed to
offer probative evidence of market values-in-use as of March 1, 2011, they
failed to make a prima facie case for changing the assessments.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Thiele_76-006-11-1-5-00037_etc.pdf
