c. The Respondent contends the property’s assessed value is
possibly too low. In support of this contention, Mr. Potts presented a sales
comparison analysis. Mr. Potts identified three properties and adjusted those
sales for differences in lot size, amount of living space, number of bathrooms,
air conditioning and size of the garage based on costs in the Indiana
assessment guidelines. Mr. Potts also adjusted the sale prices for the date of
sale where applicable. Mr. Potts testified comparable #1 was the closest to the
subject property because it had the least number of adjustments. The adjusted
sales price for comparable #1 was $102,100.
d. On March 7, 2013, Mr. Potts was certified by the
Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) as a professional appraiser
authorized to provide technical assistance to White County. However, he did not
indicate that he complied with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal
Practice (USPAP) in preparing the sales comparison analysis for this case.
Further, Mr. Potts failed to show how he arrived at many of the adjustments he
made between the comparable properties and the subject property. For example,
Mr. Potts made adjustments of -$5,100 and -$3,200 based on sale dates. He also
made adjustments for site size, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, but failed to
account for how he arrived at each adjustment. It is not clear to the Board
what objective data Mr. Potts used to justify the adjustments.
e. The adjustments used to support the conclusion that the
assessment should not be lowered were a significant part of the Respondent’s
case. Because Mr. Potts failed to show how he arrived at the specific
adjustments, the Board does not find his evidence to be probative.
f. In other cases where the Respondent has the burden to
prove the assessment is correct and failed to carry that burden, the Board has
ordered that the assessment be returned to the assessed value of the preceding
year. In this case, the assessment is reduced to $76,000.
g. As explained above, the Petitioner asked the Board to
reduce the subject property’s assessment even further to $72,400. The
Petitioner has the burden of proving he is entitled to the additional
reduction. The Board now turns to Mr. Amick’s evidence.
h. The Petitioner asserts the value could be $72,400 based
on the application of a 2.3% increase in sales in the area in 2011. This figure
represents the average increase in sale price from 2010 to 2011, but not for
the valuation date of March 1, 2012.
i. Further, Mr. Amick relied on the 2009 appraised value as
a starting point for his 2012 appeal. The date of the appraisal was September
8, 2009, and so it does not reflect either the value or the condition of the
subject property as of the March 1, 2012, assessment date. Further, the Board
gives little weight to an appraisal report which includes only the cover letter
and one page of an addendum.
j. The Petitioner failed to prove he was entitled to a
further reduction in the assessed value.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Amick_91-016-12-1-5-00005.pdf
