The 2011 assessment was
$91,400.00 and the 2012 assessment was $118,100.00. This increase is more than
5%. Moreover, the parties agree the Respondent has the burden of proving the
2012 assessment is correct.
…
c. To support the assessment, the
Respondent offered a comparative market analysis that examined three nearby
properties. It concluded the average square foot value of those properties was
$116. Resp’t Ex. 6.
d. The comparative market
analysis relies on the sales comparison approach to establish value. In order
to use a sales-comparison approach as evidence in an assessment appeal one must
first show that the properties being examined are comparable to each other.
Conclusory statements that a property is “similar” or “comparable” to another
property are not probative evidence. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470-471.
Instead, 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 between
the properties affect their relative market values-in-use. Id. This is
especially true where, as in this appeal, the sales prices of the alleged comparable
properties range from $85,000 to $197,500. Here, the comparative market
analysis offers only a minimal description of the homes’ features.
e. Undisputed testimony from the
Petitioners identified significant differences among the homes, yet the
Respondent offered no additional comparison of the properties or an analysis of
the impact on value resulting from these differences. Further, the Respondent’s
witness testified sales from 2011 and 2012 were to be examined for the 2012
assessment. Two of the identified sales, however, occurred in 2010, yet the
comparative market analysis showed no adjustment for time of sale. Accordingly,
this comparative market analysis is of no probative value.
f. The Board has generally held
that if the burden-shifting statute applies, the assessor’s failure to prove
that the assessment was correct requires lowering the property’s value to the
previous year’s level, in this case $91,400. The Petitioners, however, asserted
the correct assessment should be $95,000, which approximates both the prior
year’s assessment and the middle of the range of values provided by the
Petitioners. Under these circumstances, the Board will not make the assessed
value less than the Petitioners claimed. The total assessment therefore will be
reduced to the value proposed by the Petitioners, $95,000.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Smith_06-010-12-1-5-00591.pdf
