Board Finds Respondent's Sales Comparable Analysis Fails to Support Property's Assessed Value

In the case at hand, the parties agreed that the Petitioners’property’s assessment increased from $301,500 in 2009 to $370,700 in 2010,which is an increase of 23%. The Assessor, therefore, has the burden of provingthe assessment was correct for 2010.…
Here, the Respondent argues that the Petitioner’s property’sassessment was correct for 2010 based on the property’s market value-in-use. Insupport of this contention, the Respondent presented a valuation opinionprepared by Mr. Jorczak, the county’s director of commercial operations. In hisvaluation opinion, Mr. Jorczak testified that he used three properties in thePetitioners’ property’s neighborhood and adjusted those sales “based on thevarious attributes of the property.” However, the only support Mr. Jorczakprovided for those adjustments was that he followed “the guidelines put forthby the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance.”
While Mr. Jorczak’s assertions may not differ significantlyfrom those made by a certified appraiser in an appraisal report, theappraiser’s assertions are backed by his education, training, and experience.The appraiser also typically certifies that he complied with the UniformStandards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Thus, the Board, as thetrier-of-fact, can infer that the appraiser used objective data, whereavailable, to quantify his adjustments. And where objective data was notavailable, the Board can infer that the appraiser relied on his education,training and experience to estimate a reliable quantification. Mr. Jorczak,however, is not a certified appraiser; he did not establish that he has anyparticular expertise in applying generally accepted appraisal principles; andhe did not certify that he complied with USPAP in performing his valuationanalysis. Consequently, Mr. Jorczak’s sales comparison approach lacks probativevalue in this case. See Inland Steel Co. v. State Board of TaxCommissioners, 739 N.E.2d 201, 220 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000) (holding that anappraiser’s opinion lacked probative value where the appraiser failed toexplain what a producer price index was, how it was calculated or that its useas a deflator was a generally accepted appraisal technique)
Because the assessor failed to meet its burden of proof, thesubject property’s March 1, 2010, assessment must be reduced to its previous year’slevel of $82,700 for the land and $218,800 for the improvements, for a totalassessed value of $301,500.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Nowosielski_64-011-10-1-5-00006.pdf