45 N.E.3d 876
Ind. T.C.2015Background
- Gateway Arthur, Inc. owned six parcels (three retail buildings ~270,000 sq ft, retention pond, two access roads, pylon sign) at The Shoppes at County Line Road; Marion County Assessor assigned a 2006 assessed value of $17,451,900.
- Gateway appealed the 2006 assessment to the PTABOA in 2008; PTABOA failed to issue a timely decision, so Gateway sought review before the Indiana Board in 2011.
- The Indiana Board found the assessor bore the burden of proof because the assessment rose more than 5% from 2005 to 2006; the assessor presented an Income Analysis valuing the three buildings at $18,472,400 and a computer printout indicating a 2007 purchase for $21,000,000.
- Gateway challenged the Income Analysis as not properly accounting for taxes/expenses and attacked the reliability of the computer sales printout; the Board found the assessor’s evidence lacked probative value and reinstated the 2005 settlement value of $10,504,100 for 2006.
- The assessor appealed to the Indiana Tax Court, arguing the Board erred as to burden of proof, the probative value of evidence (income analysis and sales data), and the reinstated valuation.
- The Tax Court affirmed: the burden-shifting determination was proper, the Income Analysis and sales printout were insufficiently probative, and reinstatement of the prior settlement value was authorized by statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Assessor) | Defendant's Argument (Gateway) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board erred in assigning burden of proof to assessor | Burden-shifting statute version cited did not apply to 2006 assessment; assessor should not bear burden | Board correctly applied statute based on >5% increase between 2005–2006 | Board correctly placed burden on assessor because assessment increased >5% |
| Whether assessor's Income Analysis had probative value | Analysis was valid; expense ratio included property taxes so conclusions reliable | Income Analysis misstated tax/expense treatment; testimony showed taxes were excluded | Board reasonably found Income Analysis lacked probative value given conflicting record testimony |
| Whether the reported 2007 purchase price was probative of 2006 value | Computer printout showing $21M sale should be admitted and probative | Printout unreliable (unknown data entry, wrong dates, excluded parcels; sale was part of portfolio allocation) | Board permissibly rejected the printout as probative evidence of 2006 value |
| Whether Board erred by reinstating 2005 settlement value rather than adopting assessor’s higher valuations | Without taxpayer valuation, Board should adopt assessor’s 2006 assessment or other presented valuations | Statute allows reinstatement to prior-year settlement value if assessor fails burden and taxpayer provides no valuation | Statute authorizes reinstatement; Board did not err in restoring $10,504,100 |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubler Realty Co. v. Hendricks Cnty. Assessor, 938 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (party challenging Board decision bears burden to show invalidity)
- Orange Cnty. Assessor v. Stout, 996 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (burden-shifting statute triggered by appeals showing >5% assessment increase)
- Hamilton Cnty. Prop. Tax Assessment Bd. of Appeals v. Oaken Bucket Partners, LLC, 938 N.E.2d 654 (Ind.) (court defers to Board when reasonable minds could find record support)
- French Lick Twp. Tr. Assessor v. Kimball Int’l, Inc., 865 N.E.2d 732 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (Board’s acceptance of taxpayer evidence will not be overturned absent abuse of discretion)
- Kooshtard Prop. VIII, LLC v. Shelby Cnty. Assessor, 987 N.E.2d 1178 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (claims not raised before the Board may be waived on appeal)
- Peters v. Garoffolo, 32 N.E.3d 847 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (distinguishing burden of persuasion from burden of production)