32 N.E.3d 847
Ind. T.C.2015Background
- Lee and Sally Peters own a 2,852 sq. ft. office building on a 0.16-acre lot in Zionsville; their assessed value rose from $306,400 (2009) to $430,900 (2010), later reduced by PTABOA to $420,000.
- Petitioners appealed the 2010 assessment to the Indiana Board of Tax Review; the Board found Petitioners failed to prove overvaluation and upheld $420,000.
- Petitioners filed this tax appeal in Indiana Tax Court challenging (1) which party bore the burden of proof at the administrative hearing and (2) whether the evidence established the property was overvalued.
- The 2010 increase resulted from the Assessor correcting an earlier error: half of the lot (0.08 acre) had been omitted in 2009; the Assessor added the missing land and applied the existing base rate.
- The Assessor submitted sales data (17 sales, but primarily 4 sales from 2008–2009) supporting a higher $/sq ft; the Petitioners submitted adjusted sales data and curve-fit calculations yielding lower $/sq ft estimates.
- The Board concluded (despite misallocating the statutory burden at the hearing) that the Petitioners failed to rebut the Assessor’s prima facie case because neither side adequately explained comparability of the sales data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bore the burden of proof at the administrative hearing | Peters: Board wrongly placed burden on them; burden-shifting statute (5% increase) places burden on Assessor | Assessor: Board treated taxpayer as bearing burden because property record changed | Court: Board erred — statute shifts burden to Assessor when assessment increases >5%; but error did not require reversal because outcome supported by evidence |
| Whether 2010 assessment overvalued the property | Peters: Lot size shouldn’t increase overall value; building has little value; their adjusted comparable-sales analyses support lower assessment ($360k–$405k) | Assessor: Increase correct — correction of omitted 0.08 acre and application of base rate; sales data support higher $/sq ft | Court: Petitioners failed to rebut Assessor’s prima facie case; neither party explained comparability sufficiently, so Board’s determination was supported and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Millennium Real Estate Inv., LLC v. Benton Cnty. Assessor, 979 N.E.2d 192 (market value-in-use is generally equivalent to fair market value)
- Orange Cnty. Assessor v. Stout, 996 N.E.2d 871 (describing Indiana burden-shifting rule for >5% assessment increases)
- Horizon Bancorp v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 644 N.E.2d 870 (unambiguous statutes must be read according to plain meaning)
- Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 15 N.E.3d 150 (assessments made under Guidelines are presumed accurate)
- Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466 (requirement to explain comparability when using sale data)
- Damon Corp. v. Indiana State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 738 N.E.2d 1102 (burden to present a prima facie case in property tax appeals)