c. The Petitioners contended the
purchase price and a new roof costing $2,000 indicates the market value of the
subject property should be $40,000.
d. The Petitioners bought the
property on June 06, 2008, for $37,700. His purchase was over three years
before the assessment and valuation date of March 1, 2012. The purchase price
of the property can be a good way to prove an accurate market value-in-use for
assessment purposes. Here, however, the Petitioners failed to demonstrate the
relevance of the purchase date to the market value-in-use as of the assessment date.
e. The Petitioners claimed the
improvement identified as 3446 Red Bud Lane was the only improvement on this
property that was rentable on the assessment date. The Petitioners also
presented fifteen photos of the improvements to support his claim that all the
improvements were in poor condition—referring to items such as broken furnaces,
ceilings that leak, rotted floors and windows, smoke damage, damaged cabinets,
and frozen water pipes. But he failed to quantify the effect the poor condition
of the improvements had on the market value of the property.
f. The Petitioners alleged the
property needed $20,000 of improvements to make it worth $60,000. This opinion
of value is not supported by evidence or facts. The Petitioners must
sufficiently explain the connection between the evidence and Petitioners’
assertions in order for it to be considered material to the facts. ‘Conclusory
statements’ are of no value to the State in its evaluation of the evidence. See
Heart City Chrysler v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 714 N.E. 2d 329 (Ind. Tax 1999)
(stating that conclusory statements are statements, allegations, or assertions
that are unsupported by any detailed factual evidence).
g. When taxpayers fail to provide
probative evidence supporting their 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.
h. While the Petitioners failed
to make a prima facie case for reducing the subject property’s assessment, the
Assessor conceded the property was worth only $56,400 for 2012. The Board
accepts the Assessor’s concession.
