24. Indiana assesses real
property based on its true tax value, which the DLGF defines as the property’s
market value-in-use. Evidence in an assessment appeal must be consistent with
that standard. A market-value-in-use appraisal prepared according to the
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice often will be probative. Kooshtard
Property VI v. White River Twp. Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 501, 506 n. 6.
(Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). A party may also offer actual construction costs or sales
information for the property under appeal, sales or assessment information for
comparable properties, and any other information compiled according to
generally accepted appraisal principles. See id. At 506; see also,
I.C. § 6-1.1-15-18 (allowing parties to offer evidence of comparable properties’
assessments to show the market value-in-use for a property under appeal).
25. The Assessor did little to
support the land portion of the subject property’s assessment. At most, his
witness, Ms. Hisle, testified as to why the land should be classified as excess
residential acreage rather than as agricultural. Even if Ms. Hisle is correct
about the property’s classification, however, that still begs the question:
Does the land’s assessment accurately reflect its market value-in-use? And the
Assessor offered no probative evidence to answer that question.
26. The Assessor at least tried
to address the property’s value as a whole (including both improvements and
land) by offering sales evidence for two other properties from the same
neighborhood. For sales data to be probative, the sold properties must be sufficiently
comparable to the property under appeal. Conclusory statements that a property
is “similar” or “comparable” to another property do not show comparability. See
Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 470 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005).
Instead, one must identify the characteristics of the property under appeal and
explain both how those characteristics compare to the characteristics of the
sold properties and how any relevant differences affect the properties’
relative market values-in-use. See id. at 471.
27. Ms. Hisle did little to
compare the sold properties to the subject property other than to point to each
home’s location, size, age, and construction quality. She did not address whether
the sold properties were located in a flood plain. And she did even less to explain
the degree to which significant differences between the sold properties and the
subject property affect their relative values. She mainly relied on the fact
that the subject property has substantially more land, and in one case, a
larger home, than the other two properties. Yet those properties sold
respectively for $93,200 and $46,300 less than the subject property’s
assessment. The Board will not simply assume that the subject property’s larger
home and extra land, much of which floods, necessarily accounts for such a wide
gulf in values.
28. Because the Assessor did not
offer probative evidence of the property’s market value-in-use, he failed to
meet his burden of proving that the assessment is correct. The property’s land
assessment for 2011 must therefore be reduced to its previous year’s level of $28,300.
