19. Here, the Petitioner contends the property is
over-assessed based on one listing and two sales of vacant property. Petitioner
Exhibits 1-3. The Petitioner did not establish the properties were comparable
and did not address any differences that might affect the market value-in-use.
In fact, as the Respondent pointed out, the properties are not comparable. One
property is not suitable for a residence because a septic system cannot be
installed, another property is on a different lake, and the last has building
restrictions.
20. Additionally, the Petitioner averaged the prices per
front foot of the properties and calculated $304 per front foot. The Petitioner
proposed a value of $400 per front foot (Petitioner’s cover sheet). Neither of
these values supports the Petitioner’s requested values of $9,000 and $4,000.
21. Where the party with the burden has not supported its
claims with probative evidence, the opposing party’s duty to offer substantial
evidence of the correct assessment 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). Thus, the Board will not review the Respondent’s evidence.
