Monday, February 3, 2014

Board Finds Taxpayer Failed to Prove Structure was "Shed"

Excerpt of the Board's Determination follow:


The Petitioners offered two photographs to show the improvement is more like a shed than a house and therefore one acre should not be classified as a homesite. These exhibits, however, are only family photographs and reveal no significant features of the home. Additionally, photographs are akin to conclusory statements and offer no probative value unless accompanied by some explanation relating them to the property’s true tax value. See Bernacchi v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 727 N.E.2d 1133 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000) (stating in dicta that the photographs of the residence . . . were merely conclusory statements).

20. The record establishes the parcel has a home (albeit apparently in need of considerable repairs), a well, and electrical connections. The Petitioners acknowledged the parcel has previously been assessed with a homesite and even received the benefit of a homestead credit. The Petitioners therefore failed to show that the parcel lacks a homesite.

21. The Petitioners further failed to introduce any market evidence, such as an appraisal or evidence of the sales of comparable properties, to show what a more accurate assessed value might be. Conclusory statements that the house is worthless and the land is worth $4,000 - $5,000 per acre are not probative. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998). Accordingly, the Petitioners did not make a prima facie case that there is an error in the current 2012 assessment. See Eckerling, 841 N.E.2d at 674 (stating “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.”)

22. When a taxpayer fails to provide probative evidence supporting the position that an assessment should be changed, the Respondent’s duty to support the assessment with substantial evidence is not triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003); Whitley Products, 704 N.E.2d at 1119.
 
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Kelp_Heirs_07-004-12-1-5-00001.pdf