15. The Assessor valued the
subject property at $9,600 for 2011. The assessment under appeal—the PTABOA’s
determination of $14,200 for 2012—represents an increase of far more than 5%.
The Assessor therefore has the burden of proving that the 2012 assessment is
correct. To the extent that Mr. Robinson seeks an assessment below $9,600, he
bears the burden of proving that lower value.
…
b. The Assessor mainly argued
that she followed the 2011 Real Property Assessment Guidelines in computing a
unit value for the subject property and applied negative influence factors that
had originally been designed to make the property’s assessment reflect its
purchase price from 2006. It is insufficient to make a prima facie case by
simply showing how the Guidelines were, or should be applied. See Eckerling
v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 677 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (holding
that a taxpayer failed to make a prima facie case by focusing strictly on the assessor’s
methodology in applying assessment regulations). Thus, the Assessor needed to
show that her Guidelines-based assessment is a correct market value-in-use. She
did not offer any probative evidence to support such a finding. That is particularly
true given that the negative influence factors she applied to the property were
based on how various characteristics affected its value in the 2006, rather
than the 2012, real estate market. See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821
N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (finding that an appraisal estimating the
value of the taxpayers’ property as of December 10, 2003, lacked probative
value where taxpayers failed to explain how the appraisal related to the property’s
value as of January 1, 1999).
c. The Assessor also points to
the fact that Mr. Robinson listed the property for sale at $21,600. Again, that
does little to show the market value-in-use. While an unsuccessful listing
might arguably show the upper limit of market value, it does little to prove a
particular value, or range of values, below that limit.
d. Because the Assessor did not
offer probative evidence to show the market value-in-use, she failed to make a
prima facie case that the 2012 assessment is correct. Therefore, Mr. Robinson
is entitled to have that assessment returned to its 2011 level of $9,600.
17. Mr. Robinson, however, did
not prove his assessment should be less than it was for 2011. The Board reaches this conclusion
for the following reasons:
a. In seeking a lower value, Mr.
Robinson offered assessment data for two nearby lots—one on Saint Joe Road and
one on Ashland Drive. The Indiana Code allows parties to offer evidence about
comparable assessments to prove the value of a property under appeal, but
comparability must be determined using generally accepted assessment and
appraisal practices. I.C. § 6-1.1-15-18. Thus, a party must explain how the
relevant characteristics of a property under appeal compare to those of any
purportedly comparable property on which he seeks to rely. He must also explain
how any differences between the properties affect their values. See Long v. Wayne
Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (rejecting comparable
sales evidence).
b. Beyond noting that the three
properties are all roughly the same size and are located next to each other,
Mr. Robinson did not meaningfully compare the other two properties to the
subject property, much less account for any relevant differences. While he
argued that the neighborhood’s land assessments are inconsistent and have fluctuated
over time, he did not even attempt to explain how those facts show any particular
value for the subject property. Therefore, Mr. Robinson failed to prove the
2012 assessment should be reduced below its 2011 level.
