In Alvarado v. Lake County Assessor (Aug. 5, 2015), the Indiana Board of Tax Review considered a number of procedural and evidentiary issues in ruling on the 2012 assessment appeal for a residential property.
Taxpayer could appeal from tax bill, when assessor failed to prove that assessment notices were issued. Taxpayer filed an appeal within forty-five days of his receipt of the 2012-pay-2013 tax bill. Assessor claimed that assessment notices had been issued and that Taxpayer did not file an appeal based on that notice. Consequently, Taxpayer’s appeal was not timely filed, the Assessor argued. Taxpayer countered that more than 250 people claimed they had not received their Form 11 notices. The Assessor claimed an assessment notice had been issued “at some point” before the tax bill was issued; the assessment notice and the tax bill would have been sent to the same address. But the Assessor’s witness did not claim to have personally mailed the assessment notice and offered no evidence to show that whoever was responsible followed routine business practices in mailing out Taxpayer’s notice. And the Assessor offered no copy of the assessment notice. His witness did not even identify the date on which the notice was allegedly mailed. Therefore, the Indiana Board concluded that Taxpayer timely filed his appeal. Slip op. at 6 ¶ 23.
Newspaper articles admitted over relevancy objections. The Assessor objected to two newspaper articles on relevancy grounds. The Indiana Board overruled the objection, explaining:
In a forum such as this, where we enter proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the primary benefit of a relevance objection is to avoid wasting time at a hearing on evidence that cannot affect the appeal’s outcome. Where, as here, the ALJ takes the objection under advisement, it matters little whether we deal with the evidence in terms of admissibility or weight. We choose the latter and overrule the objection.
Slip op. at 3 ¶ 13.
Indiana Board rulings were not evidence. The Assessor also challenged Taxpayer’s submission of copies of two final determinations by the Indiana Board in other appeals. These were not evidence and did not need to be submitted as evidence. Taxpayer “could just as easily have cited [the Board] to the decisions when making his arguments.” Slip op. at 3 ¶ 11. The objection was overruled. Id.
Undated photograph of property admitted. Taxpayer offered a photograph of the subject house with a “For Sale by Owner” sign and a price of $100,000, which Assessor objected to on grounds that it was undated and did not show an address. That objection addressed whether the picture accurately depicted the property on the assessment date. But Taxpayer offered the photograph to illustrate his testimony that relying on a home’s asking price does little to show its market value. The objection was overruled. Slip op. at 3 ¶ 15.
“Incomplete” status of appraisal went more to its weight than its admissibility. Taxpayer presented three pages from an appraisal for the property. Assessor objected to the document on grounds it was “incomplete.” While a “valid point,” the complaint nevertheless went “more to the exhibit’s weight than to its admissibility.” Slip op. at 3 ¶ 10.
Assessor had the burden of proof and could not defend the original assessment; Taxpayer’s evidence did not justify a reduction below the prior year’s value. Because the property’s assessment increased by more than 5% from 2011 to 2012, the parties agreed that the Assessor had the burden of proof under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2. The Assessor failed to meet that burden, pointing to the property’s 2008 sale price and its 2013 listing price to support the assessment. Neither was “sufficiently probative of the value.” Slip op. at 7 ¶ 25(c). The 2008 sale occurred years before the assessment date, and the Assessor did not explain how that sale related to the assessment date. The listing had “little or no probative value.” Id. “The fact that a property is exposed to the market for a commercially reasonable time without receiving any offers might tend to show that the property is worth less than its asking price. . . [but] those facts say little or nothing about how far below that asking price its value lies.” Id.
The property’s 2012 assessment automatically reverted to its lower 2011 value, since the Assessor could not support the increased value. Taxpayer’s appraisal had no probative value. It estimated the property’s value as of April 2013, and Taxpayer did not explain how the concluded value related to the March 1, 2012, assessment date. And the Board could not evaluate the reliability of the partial appraisal; its missing pages apparently explained judgments used to apply the sales comparison approach that was exclusively relied upon by the appraiser. Slip op. at 7 ¶ 26(c). None of the other evidence supplied by Taxpayer, such as newspaper articles and other Board rulings, supported a further reduction. Slip op. at 8 ¶ 26(d). The Board would not reduce the property’s value below its 2011 assessment. Slip op. at 7 ¶ 25(c). Slip op. at 8 ¶ 27.
