Indiana Code section 6-1.1-15-17.2(d) “applies to real
property for which the gross assessed value of the real property was reduced by
the assessing official or reviewing authority in an appeal conducted under IC
6-1.1-15.” Under those circumstances, “if the gross assessed value of real
property for an assessment date that follows the latest assessment date that
was the subject of an appeal described in this subsection is increased above
the gross assessed value of the real property for the latest assessment date
covered by the appeal, regardless of the amount of the increase, the county
assessor or township assessor (if any) making the assessment has the burden of
proving that the assessment is correct.” This change is effective March 25,
2014, and has application to all appeals pending before the Board.
30. For 2011, the subject proper was initially assessed
$176,700. GCooper Exhibit 1. After an informal hearing through the Board’s
Facilitation Program, the Assessor issued a Form 115 reducing the 2011 land
assessment to $88,900. GCooper Exhibit10. The land assessment for 2012 is
$172,500. GCooper Exhibit 1. GCooper Exhibit 1. Because the Petitioner successfully
appealed the land assessment in 2011, the Assessor has the burden for the 2012 land
assessment under section 17.2(d).
…
c. Here, Deputy Assessor Hawk supported the subject land
assessment multiple ways. First, he presented a GIS map showing five vacant
land sales in the subject neighborhood that sold at prices ranging from $20,819
to $23,868 per acre during 2005 to 2011. He also provided the property record
card and sales disclosure forms. Respondent Exhibit 2-12, 19 (GCooper). The
subject land was assessed at $22,169 per acre for a total assessment of $172,500.
d. Second, Hawk presented a comparable sales analysis. The
analysis shows land sales on December 22, 2011 and November 19, 2010 for
$23,868 and $20,819 per acre. Hawk testimony; Respondent Exhibits 3-4, 11-12,
16 (GCooper). According to the DLGF, assessing official use sales of properties
occurring from March 2, 2010 through March 1, 2012, for a 2012 assessment.
Therefore, the sale dates on these properties are relevant. The two comparable
properties and the subject property are all in the same Shadow Creek neighborhood.
Hawk testified that he visually inspected the properties and all three properties
have the same or similar topography and view. Hawk testimony. Furthermore, based
on the GIS map, the two comparable properties share a property line. The
property at South of McComb Road and the subject property are located near one
another with only two parcels between them. Respondent Exhibit 19 (GCooper).
There is a slight difference in the shape of the properties that does not
affect the market value. Hawk testimony. With respect to the difference in
size, Deputy Assessor Hawk adjusted each comparable. Id.; Respondent Exhibit 16
(GCooper).
e. The Deputy Assessor meaningfully explained how the
comparable land and the subject land are similar and he accounted for their
differences. This evidence supports the land assessment and is probative
because it explains how the comparables compared to the subject land and how
the size differences affected the value. Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821
N.E.2d 466, 471-72 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 2005).
f. Next, Deputy Assessor Hawk introduced four listings in
the subject neighborhood. These listings reference the price, location, size,
view, topography, and shape. Respondent Exhibit 17-18 (GCooper). After he
adjusted each property for any difference in size, the market value for each
property is $186,750 and the subject land is assessed at $172,500. Hawk testimony;
Respondent Exhibit 17-18 (GCooper). The Petitioner objected to this evidence as
hearsay and while the Board admitted the evidence over the objection, this
evidence may not form the sole basis of the determination, which it does not.
Further, to the extent real estate listings, on their own, are generally not
probative evidence of market value, in this case, this evidence simply provides
further support for the other probative evidence that supports the land
assessment.
g. While the Assessor’s evidence is not absolutely
compelling, all together it is sufficient to make a prima facie case that the
2012 assessment is correct.
h. In rebuttal, the Petitioners’ evidence included the 2011
Appraisal Report for the subject property and the Form 115 for the 2011
assessment that reduced land assessment to $88,900. The Board will start with
the 2011 Form 115 issued by the PTABOA.
i. The Petitioners assert that the 2011 Form 115 reducing
their land assessment shows the Assessor’s acceptance that the appraisal has
the proper value for the subject land for 2012. The Board finds that the Form
115 reducing the value of the subject property for 2011 lacks probative value
for a 2012 appeal. Each tax year and each assessment year stands alone. Evidence
of a property’s assessment for one year does not necessarily show its true tax value
for a different assessment year. Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners,
747 N.E.2d 645, 650 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (citing Glass Wholesalers, Inc. v. State
Board of Tax Commissioners, 568 N.E.2d 1116, 1124 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1991).
Therefore, the 2011 Form 115 reducing the land assessment of the subject
property provides little probative evidence for the 2012 land assessment.
j. Next, the Board turns to the 2011 Appraisal for the
subject property. This Appraisal is not credible evidence of the land value for
the subject property for assessment year 2012. Using the cost approach, the
Appraisal arrived at a land value of $62,240. There is no indication in the
Appraisal, other than a reference to the 2007 sale price, about how the appraiser
arrived at this value. GCooper Exhibit 3, pgs. 2-3. The “sale” referenced in
the Appraisal was between Carol Cooper and Gregory Cooper for $62,240. But the
sales disclosure statement for this transaction reveals it was a quitclaim deed
and that “no money changed hands.” Respondent Exhibit 2 (GCooper, CCooper).
k. The 2011 Real Property Assessment Manual defines market
value as the “most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms
equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the
specified property rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a
competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with the
buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for self-interest,
and assuming that neither is under undue duress.” REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
MANUAL at 5-6. Based on the sales disclosure form, however, the terms of this
transaction did not involve cash or a cash equivalent. Further, a change in
ownership from mother to son where no money changed hands is not a very
credible indication of the price that the subject property actually would sell
for after exposure in a competitive market. The Board regards such evidence as
an unreliable indicator of value.
l. The Appraisal is also hearsay. Specifically, the 2011
Appraisal Report and Star Bank’s letter are hearsay, to which the Assessor
properly objected. Although the Assessor’s hearsay objection was overruled, if
hearsay “is properly objected to and does not fall within a recognized
exception to the hearsay rule, the resulting determination may not be based solely
upon the hearsay.” 52 IAC 2-7-3. The 2011 Appraisal Report and Star Bank’s
letter cannot form the sole basis of the Board’s decision. Given that the
Petitioner offered no other probative evidence of the land’s market
value-in-use, the Board finds that the Petitioner failed to rebut the evidence
put forth by the Assessor supporting the 2012 assessment.
