...
Mr. Popejoy relies primarily on
the price that he paid for the property sometime well before 2004. But that
sale occurred more than six years before the relevant valuation date, and Mr.
Popejoy offered nothing to relate the sale price to the value as of March 1,
2010. The sale price therefore carries no probative value.
d. Mr. Popejoy also points to the
deterioration of the building. But as Ms. Becker explained, the assessment
already accounts for substantial deterioration. More importantly, Mr. Popejoy
did not offer any probative evidence to quantify the extent to which the
deterioration affected market value-in-use or to show a value, or even a range
of values, for the property.
e. Finally, Mr. Popejoy
apparently disagrees with the Assessor’s decision to classify the property as
commercial for assessment purposes given its agricultural zoning. His claim,
however, amounts to little more than a challenge to the Assessor’s methodology
in computing the assessment under the Real Property Assessment Guidelines for
2002 – Version A. As the Indiana Tax Court has explained, strict application of
the assessment regulations is not enough to rebut the presumption that an
assessment is correct. Instead, a party should offer the types of market
value-in-use evidence described in the Manual. Eckerling v. Wayne Twp.
Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 677-78 (Ind. Tax Ct.
2006).
...
