The 2011 assessment was
$54,400.00 and the 2012 assessment was $119,900. This increase is more than 5%.
Moreover, in this case the parties agree the Respondent has the burden of
proving the 2012 assessment is correct.
…
b. It is appropriate to consider the
historic and projected income and expense data of the property in question.
Unfortunately, in this case, such information is not in the record. It is also
necessary to consider data from other comparable properties in order to make
accurate, realistic projections about the income stream. Where the income and
expense data for the subject property is out of step with what the market data
shows, generally accepted appraisal principles require further examination and
analysis. Considering both types of income and expense data helps to protect
against distortions and inaccurate value estimates caused by extraneous factors
(such as bad management or poor business decisions) that really have nothing to
do with the inherent value of a property.
c. The Respondent failed to
establish that the purported income capitalization valuation shown in her
calculations conforms to generally accepted appraisal principles. The
capitalization rate used by the Respondent is a national rate obtained from the
two mobile home park appeals that obtained the rates from RealtyRates.com. The
capitalization rate used by the Respondent in this case is not probative
evidence without a meaningful explanation as to how information obtained from a
national source relates to the market in Jennings County. A relevant, credible
capitalization rate needs to be more representative of the local market than
one based on a national average.
d. Similarly, the Respondent
failed to establish that the net operating income her calculations attribute to
the subject property actually conforms to generally accepted appraisal
principles. Her conclusion about a 30% income to expense ratio appears to be
based on very little substantial evidence. And it is not clear how the
Respondent arrived at her hypothetical rent rates of $125, $150, and $175 considering
the mobile home park appeals that she relied on had rates of $220 and $165.
Again, the Respondent failed to adequately support how she arrived at these
figures upon which the entire income approach for this assessment was based.
e. The Respondent failed to
present a prima facie case that the current assessment is correct. As a result,
the Petitioner’s duty to provide substantial evidence to support a more
accurate assessment is not triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Dep’t
of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003); Whitley
Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113,1119 (Ind. Tax
Ct. 1998).
f. In other cases where the
Respondent had the burden to prove the assessment is correct and the Respondent
failed to carry that burden, the Board has ordered that the assessment be
returned to the assessed value of the year before. Therefore, the assessment
will be changed to that value.
