Here, the Petitioner’s representative argues that thePetitioner’s property was assessed too high based on the sale prices of homesin the neighborhood. For example, Mr. Lach testified, a larger property withmore amenities sold for less than the subject property’s assessed value. Inorder to effectively use the sales comparison approach as evidence in propertyassessment appeals, however, the proponent must establish the comparability ofthe properties being examined. Conclusory statements that a property is“similar” or “comparable” to another property do not constitute probativeevidence of the comparability of the properties being examined. Long,821 N.E.2d at 470. Instead, the party seeking to rely on the sales comparisonapproach must explain the characteristics of the subject property and how thosecharacteristics compare to those of the purportedly comparable properties. SeeId. at 470-71. They must explain how any differences between the propertiesaffect their relative market value-in-use. Id. Here, the Petitioner’srepresentative argues that, based on two sale prices, the subject property wasover-assessed. However, Mr. Lach made little attempt to compare the properties.He merely testified, for example, that the property that sold for $165,000 was“larger” than subject property and had “custom tiling.” Similarly, he testifiedthat the property that sold for $189,000 had a pool and a wrap-around deck, andamenities such as Corian counters, oak floors, new carpeting and energyefficient appliances. While Mr. Lach presented some evidence of the comparabilityof the two neighboring properties to the subject property, his evidence fallsshort of the burden to prove that the subject property’s assessment wasincorrect.
The Petitioner’s representative also contends that theproperty was over-assessed because its value is adversely affected by thehigh-tension lines and lots that flood in the spring, and modular homes, vacantproperties and parked cars in the neighborhood. Generally, land values in agiven neighborhood are developed by collecting and analyzing comparable salesdata for the neighborhood and surrounding areas. See Talesnick v. StateBoard of Tax Commissioners, 693 N.E.2d 657, 659 fn. 5 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).However, properties often possess peculiar attributes that do not allow them tobe grouped with each of the surrounding properties for purposes of valuation.The term “influence factor” refers to a multiplier “that is applied to thevalue of land to account for characteristics of a particular parcel of landthat are peculiar to that parcel.” GUIDELINES, glossary at 10. A Petitioner hasthe burden to produce “probative evidence that would support an application ofa negative influence factor and quantification of that influence factor.” SeeTalesnick v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 756 N.E.2d 1104, 1108 (Ind.Tax Ct. 2001). While the Petitioner’s representative testified these conditions“negatively impact” the market value of the property under appeal, he presentedlittle evidence of the property’s market value-in-use. The Petitioner thereforefailed to raise a prima facie case that its property’s assessment was too highin 2010.
Finally, Mr. Lach contends that the Petitioner’s property wasover-valued based on a “general decline” in property values. In support of thiscontention, he presented excerpts from several articles regarding the declinein real estate values nationwide. Mr. Lach also submitted an excerpt from anarticle published in the Chesterton Tribune on March 23, 2011, a portionof an undated article from The Times, two paragraphs titled “Real EstateOutlook” and two paragraphs from a news article of unknown origin. While therules of evidence generally do not apply in the Boards hearings, the Boardrequires some evidence of the accuracy and credibility of the evidence. WhitleyProducts, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1118(Ind. Tax Ct. 1998); and Herb v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 656N.E.2d 890, 893 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995). Here Mr. Lach did not write the articles.Nor was the author present. Mr. Lach submitted no evidence regarding thecredibility of the data relied upon by the articles’ authors or the accuracy ofthe conclusions drawn from the articles. Most importantly, unless thePetitioner has established the market value of its property at an earlier date,evidence showing a general decline in property values does little to establishthe property’s market value-in-use for 2010. Therefore, the Board finds thePetitioner’s argument to be insufficient to support a change in the property’sassessed value for 2010.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Lach_64-005-10-1-5-00007.pdf
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder