The Respondent’s only evidence was a print-out of the “screen
card” for the subject property record card.
Respondent Exhibit A. The Respondent presented testimony that
merely disputed Petitioner’s appraisal. Metz
testimony. The Respondent obliquely
suggested that its “price per square foot” was arrived at by “ignoring the
retail sales” from the Petitioner’s appraisal.
Id. But the Respondent failed to walk the Board
through its calculations. The Respondent
fails to establish a prima facie case that the assessment is correct. Where the party with the burden has not
support 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).
The Board finds the Respondent failed to establish that the
subject property’s assessment for 2009 was correct, and the value must be
returned to the value for 2008 (as corrected by the PTABOA), which is $73,670.
Because the Petitioner has successfully appealed the 2009
assessment, Indiana Code section 6-1.1-15-17.2 applies to the 2010 assessment,
and the Respondent has the burden of proof.
The Respondent’s evidence and arguments for the 2010 assessment are the
same as for the 2009 assessment. For the
same reasons indicated above, the Board finds that the Respondent failed to
establish that the subject property’s assessment for 2010 is correct, and the value
must be returned to the value of the 2009 assessment (as corrected by the
Board), which is $73,670.
