Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC v. Assessor, Benton County
979 N.E.2d 192
| Ind. T.C. | 2012Background
- Millennium owns three parcels in Boswell, Indiana totaling ~21.5 acres with an industrial building and three Quonset storage buildings.
- For 2008, Benton County Assessor set total assessed value at $689,800 ($230,800 land, $409,000 improvements).
- Millennium challenged the assessment to the Benton County PCB of Appeals, then to the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board).
- Indiana Board held a hearing (April 7, 2010) with Millennium presenting a US-PAP appraisal valuing the property at $325,000 as of March 1, 2008 and noting a December 2003 sale for $182,000; Millennium also showed an Asset Purchase Agreement showing a June 30, 2008 purchase price of $193,817.
- Assessor presented a USPAP-compliant appraisal valuing the property at $640,000 as of January 10, 2007; Indiana Board issued final determination upholding the assessments on July 6, 2010.
- Millennium filed a tax appeal in August 2010; Court heard argument February 18, 2011; the court affirms the Indiana Board’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board properly considered Millennium’s sales evidence. | Millennium—December 2003 and June 2008 sales show underpriced transfers. | Board properly discounted/ignored those sales as probative. | Board did not err in not crediting the December 2003 and June 2008 sales. |
| Whether the Indiana Board erred by giving greater weight to the Assessor’s Appraisal. | Assessor’s appraisal used wrong standard and overvalues the property. | Appraisal standard aligned with market value-in-use when current use = highest and best use; weight properly placed on Assessor’s appraisal. | Board did not abuse discretion in weighing the Assessor’s appraisal. |
| Whether the Appraisal methods (sales, income) and alleged defects invalidate the Assessor’s valuation. | Improvements rated as average/poor; peripheral comparables; possible obsolescence not properly addressed; financing-based distortions. | Valuation is a prosecutable opinion; differences fall within permissible appraiser discretion; Board properly weighed evidence. | Board’s reliance on the Assessor’s appraisal was not improper; substantial evidence supports it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Clark v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 694 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. Tax Ct.1998) (Board must address probative evidence meaningfully)
- Meadowbrook N. Apts. v. Conner, 854 N.E.2d 950 (Ind. Tax Ct.2005) (probative evidence persists unless contradicted)
- Big Foot Stores LLC v. Franklin Twp. Assessor, 919 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Tax Ct.2009) (sales price reflection of value dates and relevance)
- Austin v. Indiana Family & Soc. Srvs. Admin., 947 N.E.2d 979 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (arm’s-length considerations; related-party concerns)
- Trimas Fasteners, Inc. v. State, 923 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. Tax Ct.2010) (when competing valuations, Board must choose more probative opinion)
- Grider v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1239 (Ind. Tax Ct.2003) (deference to Board’s valuation choices on appeal)
- Wirth v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 613 N.E.2d 874 (Ind. Tax Ct.1993) (weight and admissibility considerations for expert testimony)