Board Finds Remodeled Home Not "Same Property" for Purpose of Burden Shifting Law

To contact us Click HERE
Here, the Petitioners andRespondent agreed that the property’s value increased from $87,500 in 2009 to$111,100 for the 2010 assessment. Form 11, Notice of Assessment of Land andStructures, attached to the Petitioners’ Form 131 Petition. However, theRespondent presented evidence that, in approximately 2002, the house wassignificantly remodeled with updated bedrooms, exterior doors and a bathroomwith a jetted garden tub.  RespondentExhibit 5. In addition, prior to2002, the home had a new roof and new double pane windows installed. Id. Becauseof these updates, the assessor testified, the “effective age” of the house wasincreased from 1900 to 1960 – which resulted in the increase in the assessedvalue of the improvements. Garoffolo testimony….

Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2applies where “the assessment that is the subject of the review or appealincreased the assessed value of the assessed property by more than five percent(5%) over the assessed value determined by the county assessor or township assessor(if any) for the immediately preceding assessment date for the same property.”Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2. … Under the plain language of Indiana Code §6-1.1-15-17.2, the burden shifts to the assessor when the assessed value of thesame property increases by more than five percent. Therefore, becausethe property’s 2010 assessment accounted for the improvements made to theproperty; whereas the property was not assessed for those updates in 2009, theassessor was not assessing the “same property” in 2010 as she did in 2009.Thus, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 does not apply in this case.
The Petitioners failed toprovide sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that their propertywas over-assessed in 2010. The Board reached this decision for the followingreasons: …

Here, the Petitioners arguethat their property was over-valued based on a comparable market analysisprepared by a real estate agent. Petitioner Exhibit 1. In her analysis,the agent identified seven properties built between 1850 and 1980 in Jefferson,Harrison, and Jackson townships that sold in 2008, 2009 and 2010. Id.
…Because the Petitioners madeno attempt to identify the similarities in the properties or to value thedifferences between the properties, their sales comparable analysis has littleprobative value.
To the extent that thePetitioners can be seen as arguing that their purchase price somehow provestheir property is over-valued, the Board finds this argument likewiseunpersuasive. Regardless of the method used to prove a property’s true taxvalue, a party must explain how its evidence relates to the subject property’smarket value-in-use as of the relevant valuation date. O’Donnell v. Dep’t ofLocal Gov’t Fin., 854 N.E.2d 90, 95 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); see also Longv. Wayne Township Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). Forthe March 1, 2010, assessment, the valuation date was March 1, 2010. Ind. Code§ 6-1.1-4-4.5 (f); 50 IAC 27-5-2 (c). Here, the Petitioners purchased thesubject property in 2002, but they made no attempt to relate the property’s2002 purchase price to the March 1, 2010, valuation date. Mrs. Badillo arguedthat they bought the property during an “economic boom” and the property wouldnot sell for its purchase price in today’s market, but she presented noevidence to support her contention. Statements that are unsupported byprobative evidence are conclusory and of no value to the Board in making itsdetermination. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704N.E.2d 1113, 1118 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Badillo_06-004-10-1-5-00008.pdf