b. The Petitioners’
evidence consisted of testimony about various serious condition problems and
photographs supporting that testimony.
But Ms. Hettle did not offer any probative evidence to quantify the
effect of those problems on the market value-in-use. This evidence is not enough to make a case
for changing the assessment.
c. Ms. Hettle
testified that she probably could not get $4,000 for the manufactured
home. Ms. Hettle did not offer any
probative evidence to support her opinion on this point. Such conclusory statements do nothing to
establish the actual market value-in-use of the property and they are of no
probative value. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.wd
1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
d. The Petitioners failed to make a prima facie case.
Therefore, the Respondent’s duty to support the assessment with substantial
evidence was not triggered. Lacy Diversified Indus. V. Dep’t of Local Gov’t
Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215, 1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003).
