22.
Several Tax Court cases affirm that evidence of the failure of the assessor to
adhere to strict application of the assessment guidelines is not enough for a
taxpayer to prevail. Challenging methodology is not sufficient without
probative evidence of a more accurate value. P/A Builders & Developers, LLC
v. Jennings Co. Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899, 900 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); Kooshtard
Prop. VI, LLC v. White River Twp. Ass’r, 836 N.E.2d 501, 506 (Ind. Tax Ct.
2005); Eckerling v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 674, 676 (Ind. Tax Ct.
2006).
23.
Petitioners offered MLS listings for five comparable properties. The first
comparable property was a .703 acre vacant lot that sold for $15,000. The
second comparable property was a 7 acre vacant lot in Green Township that sold
for $40,000. The third comparable property was a 7.97 acre lot that sold for
$130,000. The fourth comparable property was a 60 acre agricultural parcel that
sold for $369,387. The fifth comparable property was a 68 acre agricultural
parcel that sold for $480,000. These properties vary from the subject property,
which was approximately 2 acres. The Petitioners provided no other evidence or
information about the comparable properties. The evidence and argument provided
is insufficient for the Board to draw any legitimate conclusion about a more
accurate valuation for the subject property. Such conclusory statements are of
no probative value unless accompanied by some explanation relating them to the
property’s true tax value. Bernacchi v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 727 N.E.2d
1133 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000). See also, Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. Of Tax
Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
24.
The Petitioner did not establish a prima facie case that the 2010 assessment
must be changed. See Eckerling, 841 N.E.2d at 674 (stating that a taxpayer who
challenges an assessment must show that the assessor's assessed value does not
accurately reflect market value-in-use.)
25.
Accordingly, the Respondent was not required to support the assessment with
substantial evidence. 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.
