c. The most effective method to
show the value assigned by the assessor is incorrect can be through the
presentation of a market value-in-use appraisal, completed in conformance with
USPAP. O’Donnell v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 854 N.E.2d 90, 94 n. 3
(Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); Kooshtard Property VI, LLC v. White River Twp. Assessor,
836 N.E.2d 501, 506 n. 6 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). Here, an appraisal prepared
by a licensed appraiser in accordance with USPAP determined the value of this
property was $272,000 as of March 1, 2010. That appraisal is sufficient to make
a prima facie case. Therefore, the burden shifted to the Respondent to rebut or
impeach the appraisal. See American United Life Ins. Co. v. Maley, 803 N.E.2d
276 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004).
d. The Respondent offered a
comparative market analysis to support the assessment. It examined four nearby
properties and concluded their average square foot value was $138. It relies on
the sales comparison approach, but in order to use that approach effectively
one must show that the properties being examined are comparable. Conclusory
statements that they are “similar” or “comparable” are not enough. Such
statements are not probative evidence. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470-471. To make such a showing,
one must identify the characteristics of the property under appeal and explain
how those characteristics compare to the characteristics of the purportedly
comparable properties. Similarly, one must explain how any differences affect
their relative market values-in-use. Id.
e. In this case, the comparative
market analysis is not probative. It offered only a minimal description of the
comparables and its purported valuation failed to take into account differences
between the subject property and the comparables—even though the evidence
identified several differences. For example, the subject property is a C++ grade
home built in 1982. It has original carpeting, tile and vinyl flooring. The
subject property also has 3 bedrooms, is single story with 2½ baths and
original appliances. The subject property also has a two car attached garage.
In contrast, comparable 1 (835 Sugarbush) is an A+ grade home with 4 bedrooms,
a three car attached garage, multiple levels, 2 fireplaces, new appliances,
granite countertops and is considerably larger. Comparable 2 (750 Sugarbush) is
a 5 bedroom B+ grade home with two levels, updated appliances, a skylight, a
balcony, and is larger. These differences are significant. Nevertheless, the
Respondent failed to address these differences or offer an analysis of how they
impact the relative values of the properties. On the other hand, the
comparative market analysis considered the property at 630 Morningside Drive to
be the most similar to the subject property. It is a one level C+ grade home in
the same neighborhood as the subject property. It has 3 bedrooms and
approximately the same square footage as the subject property. Furthermore, the
Appraiser considered it as a comparable and gave its $271,940 value the most
weight.
f. The Respondent merely
calculated the average sales price of the four properties on the comparative
market analysis at $138 per square foot, and used that figure to conclude the
value of the subject property. Nothing in the record indicates that this kind
of methodology conforms to generally accepted appraisal principles. Conclusory
statements regarding value based on an average square foot selling price are
not sufficient to establish a relevant or accurate valuation for the subject property.
Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
g. The Respondent “questioned”
some of the adjustments made by the appraiser. For example, the Respondent
claimed the appraiser’s $20 per square foot adjustment on the comparable sales
is too low, but offered no probative evidence for what a more accurate
adjustment would be. Merely making such bald assertions does not rebut the
Petitioner’s case. Id. The Respondent also claimed the pool adjustment
should have been determined using the cost tables contained in the Guidelines—even
though the appraised value was not based on the cost approach and no evidence
was presented to establish the cost of a pool results in a dollar-for-dollar
increase in the market value-in-use of the residence. The Board ultimately is
not persuaded that any of the purported weaknesses of the appraisal seriously
harm its credibility and reliability in this case.
