Lakes of Four v. Dept. of Local

8 Citing cases

  1. In re the Majestic Star Casino Llc

    457 B.R. 327 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that appraiser's testimony "that the investor would pay $200 million for something he could build for $100 million ... violates the principle of substitution upon which the cost approach is based"

    In Indiana, a property tax assessment is generally presumed to be correct, but a taxpayer may rebut that presumption by making a prima facie case that the actual true tax value differs from that determined by the assessor. See, e.g., Meridian Towers East & West v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 805 N.E.2d 475, 478–79 (Ind.Tax Ct.2003); Lakes of the Four Seasons Property Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 875 N.E.2d 833, 837 (Ind.Tax Ct.2007). The most effective means for a taxpayer to establish a prima facie case is to present a market value-in-use appraisal that was completed in conformance with USPAP. Kooshtard Property VI, LLC v. White River Twp. Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 501, 506 n. 6 (Ind.Tax Ct.2005).

  2. Pulte Homes of Ind., LLC v. Hendricks Cnty. Assessor

    42 N.E.3d 590 (Ind. T.C. 2015)   Cited 6 times
    Affirming dismissal following the Indiana Board's sua sponte motion to show cause

    Pulte next claims, like the claim in Muir Woods, that the Indiana Board erred by determining the Form 133 appeal procedure was improper to claim that the assessments of its common area parcels were illegal as a matter of law for two reasons. First, Pulte argues that because the Tax Court and the Indiana Board previously issued decisions finding common area parcels have an assessed value of zero and several assessors chose to follow those decisions, Pulte's common area parcels should have an assessed value of zero. (Compare Pet'r Br. at 12–17, 25–26 (referring to Lakes of Four Seasons Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 875 N.E.2d 833, 836 (Ind. Tax Ct.2007), review denied; Brenwick TND Cmtys., LLC v. Clay Twp. Assessor, Pet. No. 29–003–03–1–5–00060, (Ind. Bd. Tax Review May 15, 2006) with Muir Woods, 36 N.E.3d at 1212, 2015 WL 3814552, at *4 ).)

  3. Four Seasons v. Finance

    891 N.E.2d 40 (Ind. 2008)

    February 28, 2008. Appeal from the 875 N.E.2d 833. Petition for Review denied.

  4. Grant Cnty. Assessor v. Ballinger

    157 N.E.3d 34 (Ind. T.C. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, this Court has explained that there is no "per se rule that presenting a USPAP-compliant appraisal automatically establishes a prima facie case for reducing an assessment under Indiana's market value-in-use assessment system." Wigwam Holdings LLC v. Madison Cty. Assessor, 125 N.E.3d 7, 12 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019) ; see also generally Lakes of Four Seasons Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 875 N.E.2d 833 (Ind Tax Ct. 2007) (regarding the making of a prima facie case for reducing an assessment without a USPAP-compliant appraisal), review denied. Consequently, the Ballingers' lack of a USPAP-compliant appraisal is not fatal to making their prima facie case.

  5. Fisher v. Carroll Cnty. Assessor

    74 N.E.3d 582 (Ind. T.C. 2017)   Cited 6 times
    Explaining that when a taxpayer appeals its property tax assessment, they bear the burden of proof

    In any event, while this Court has previously acknowledged that property can be so encumbered by easements or restrictions that it is rendered valueless, it has also explained that an objective, factual basis is necessary to sustain such a finding. See, e.g. , Lakes of Four Seasons Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dep't Local Gov't Fin. , 875 N.E.2d 833, 836–37 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007) (indicating that because the streets owned by a subdivision's homeowner association could never be sold and did not generate income supported the conclusion that they had no value), review denied . Fisher has not provided the Court with any factual basis to support the conclusion that her property has no value; in fact, there is evidence in the administrative record that indicates otherwise. (See, e.g. , Cert. Admin. R. at 3 (indicating that Fisher believes her property should be valued at $62,000), 211–13 (indicating that despite the easement's presence, Fisher's property can be sold), 215 (indicating that when Fisher sells her property, the Club has first right of refusal).)

  6. Marion Cnty. Assessor v. Wash. Square Mall, LLC

    46 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. T.C. 2015)   Cited 13 times
    Explaining that as Indiana's property valuation and assessment expert, the Indiana Board must ascertain which parts of an appraisal are probative to valuing property properly

    In order for an appraiser's opinion of value to be probative, however, it must be based upon facts. See, e.g., Lakes of Four Seasons Property Owners' Ass'n v. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 875 N.E.2d 833, 836 (Ind.Tax Ct.2007), review denied. Indeed, if an appraiser has not identified the objective bases for his opinion, the Indiana Board has no way to assess whether the proffered opinion is rationally-based or merely a conclusion.

  7. Howard Cnty. Assessor v. Kokomo Mall, LLC

    14 N.E.3d 895 (Ind. T.C. 2014)   1 Legal Analyses

    Because the presentation of an appraisal is not the only way to rebut the presumption that an assessment is correct, it follows that the same type of evidence may be used to impeach the accuracy of an appraisal or lend support to the accuracy of an assessment. See, e.g., Shelbyville MHPI, LLC v. Thurston, 978 N.E.2d 527, 530 (Ind. Tax Ct.2012) ; Lakes of Four Seasons Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 875 N.E.2d 833, 837 (Ind. Tax Ct.2007) review denied; Kooshtard Prop. VI, LLC v. White River Twp. Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 501, 506 n. 6 (Ind. Tax Ct.2005), review denied. Accordingly, the Court will not reverse the Indiana Board's final determination on this basis either.

  8. Meijer Stores Ltd. Part. v. Smith

    926 N.E.2d 1134 (Ind. T.C. 2010)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that the assessor failed to present “market-based evidence” that impeached the taxpayer's appraisal and supported its own assessment

    Consequently, the Indiana Board's resolution of this issue was not based on substantial evidence, as Wayne County presented no evidence against which to weigh or discount Meyer's evidence. This Court has previously stated that one of the most effective methods for a taxpayer to rebut the presumption of correctness afforded to an assessment made pursuant to Indiana's assessing guidelines is through the presentation of a market value-in-use appraisal, completed in conformance with USPAP. See, e.g., Lakes of Four Seasons Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 875 N.E.2d 833, 837 n. 7 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007), review denied. Meijer presented such an appraisal.