Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow:
According to Indiana Code §
6-1.1-4-13(a), “land shall be assessed as agricultural land only when it is
devoted to agricultural use.” Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-13(a). “Those portions of
agricultural parcels that include land and buildings not used agriculturally, such
as homes, homesites, and excess land and commercial or industrial land and buildings,
shall be adjusted by the factor or factors developed for other similar property
within the geographical stratification.” 50 IAC 27-6-1.
d. In this case, the Petitioner
argues that the land is and always has been agricultural land. According to the
Petitioner, the lease payments for the ground are no different than a crop
lease and, if the cell tower were removed, the land would revert to agricultural
use. There is no dispute that the property at issue has a communications tower
on it. Thus, the land on which the cell tower sits is not currently used as agricultural
land and cannot be assessed as agricultural land. See Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-13(a).
Instead, the cell tower land is used for commercial gain and should be assessed
accordingly. See 50 IAC 27-6-1.
e. The Petitioner attempted to
calculate a value based on the income approach, but failed to show that his
evidence of market value-in-use conformed to generally accepted appraisal
practices. More specifically, the Petitioner’s opinion that only 10% of the lease
is attributable to the land is unsupported. Furthermore, even though the Petitioner
used the 5% capitalization rate that he claimed the Respondent used, neither
party presented evidence to support the use of that rate. Statements that are unsupported
by probative evidence are conclusory and of little value to the Board in making
its determination. See Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs,
704 N.E. 2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
f. Thus, the Board concludes that
the Petitioner failed to make a prima facie case that the assessment was
incorrect. Where the Petitioner has not supported his claim with probative
evidence, the Respondent’s duty to support the assessment with substantial evidence
is not triggered. Lacy Diversified Indus. LTD v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin.,
799 N.E. 2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003.)
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Davis_37-031-12-1-1-00001.pdf
