c. Again, the Respondent conceded the 2011
assessment determined by the PTABOA is incorrect. And the parties agreed the
improvements are assessed correctly at $110,300. The dispute is about the land
value. The Respondent testified the land value should be reduced to a value of
$75,200 for a total assessed value of $185,500.
d. There is no dispute that the Petitioners used a
portion of the property to sell agriculturally produced products. Meyer
Creative Landscapes is located on the subject property and files a Business
Tangible Personal Property Assessment Return under Meyer Creative Landscapes
using the subject property as the business address. It has commercial buildings
on it, includes parking area, storage area, and necessary support land; and is
used as primary land for the Petitioners’ landscaping business. The evidence is
sufficient to establish that Respondent properly re-classified .5 acre to
primary commercial land.
e. In support of the primary commercial land base
rate, the Respondent relied on the rate of $50,000 per acre as set by the Land
Commission and also identified two sales of purportedly comparable properties.
The first comparable is 5.73 acres of vacant land that sold for $80,278 per
acre in 2007. Like the subject, it is in a rural area located on State Highway
231. The second comparable was 2.076 acres of vacant land that sold for $90,318
per acre in 2009. It is also in a rural area located just off State Highway
231. These parcels vary significantly in both size and price per acre when
compared to the Petitioners’ parcel. The sale dates were 2007 and 2009, which
could be problematic. The Respondent, however, also performed sales ratio
studies of land in Bainbridge Township each year and did not change the
commercial primary land base rate of $50,600 per acre from 2002 to 2011. This
fact demonstrates the stability of the market value of land in Bainbridge
Township over a period of almost ten years. These facts evaluated together are
some evidence that the market value of the primary commercial land would be no
less than $50,000 per acre as of March 1, 2011.
f. As support for a much lower land value, the
Petitioners introduced two PRCs of purportedly comparable properties to show
these properties had a lower land base rate than the subject parcel. But in
order to effectively use a comparison approach to value a property, the
proponent must establish actual comparability. Conclusory statements that a
property is “similar” or “comparable” to another property do not constitute
probative evidence of comparability. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470. Instead,
comparability must be proved through comparisons of the characteristics of the
subject property and the comparables. Here, the properties identified by the
Petitioners are classified as commercial and the land is assessed as
undeveloped usable. The Petitioners, however, failed to demonstrate these properties
are comparable to their parcel.
g. The statewide agricultural land base rate value
in 2010 was $1,250 per acre based on a six-year rolling average of market
value-in-use as calculated by the DLGF pursuant to 50 IAC 21-6-1(a).3 Using the
six-year rolling average mandated by the Legislature, the DLGF determined the
agricultural base rate for 2011 would be $1,500 per acre. Resp’t Ex. C.
The Petitioners request for a return to the 2010 base rate of $1,290 is
contrary to the Legislature’s instructions and unavailable.
h. From this evidence, the Respondent showed the
assessed value should be $185,500. Specifically, the Petitioners agreed the
2010 assessment was correct and they agreed with the 2011 assessed value for
their improvements. The dispute is only about the 2011 land value. The
Petitioners also agreed they operate a commercial landscaping business on a
portion of the parcel. Accordingly, to determine the 2011 land value ($75,200),
the Assessor reclassified .5 acres from tillable land to primary commercial
land and used the 2011 agriculture land base rates to calculate the value of
the remaining agricultural acres. Resp’t Ex. I-1. The value of the .5
acres is $25,000. The soil types and negative influence factors due to flooding
were not changed from the 2010 assessment, which the Petitioner agreed is
correct. From this the Assessor correctly determined that the property’s total
value for 2011 was $185,500.
i. The Petitioners claimed their property did not
have the needed utilities to support a major commercial operation. Assuming the
truth of that statement, the Petitioners presented no market evidence to
quantify the impact of the alleged deficiency or show that the assessment is
not a reasonable measure of the property’s true tax value. See Eckerling, 841
N.E.2d at 677 (holding when a taxpayer chooses to challenge an assessment, he
or she must show that the assessor's assessed value does not accurately reflect
the property's market value-in-use. Strict application of the regulations is
not enough to rebut the presumption that the assessment is correct).
j. The Petitioners spent much of their time arguing
that the PTABOA did not properly consider their contentions and was improperly
constituted. The credibility of these contentions is weakened by the fact the
Petitioners did not appear at the PTABOA hearing to argue their position.
Regardless, those claims are irrelevant at this point. The Board’s proceedings
are de novo, and nothing about how the PTABOA was constituted or
conducted its deliberations hindered the Petitioners from presenting their
valuation case to the Board.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Meyer_19-001-11-1-5-00015.pdf
