A Carroll County man who owns agricultural property containing hog buildings couldn’t convince the Indiana Tax Court that the Indiana Board of Tax Review erred when it rejected four self-prepared analyses he offered as to what value his property should be assessed.
In two opinions handed down Tuesday, Vern R. Grabbe, pro se, appealed the 2009 assessment of his two contiguous parcels of land and the decision to apply the 2009 agricultural property assessment to the 2010 tax year.
For 2009, the property was assessed at $274,500. Grabbe thought that assessment was too high so he sought review. Before the Indiana Board of Tax Review, he presented four self-prepared analyses to show that the assessed value should be $218,262 – the allocation approach, the cost approach, the income approach, and the market data approach. The board determined all four approaches lacked probative value because he failed to show that his analyses comported with generally accepted appraisal principles, and it retained the $274,500 assessment value.
In Vern R. Grabbe v. Carroll County Assessor, Neda K. Duff, 49T10-1108-TA-51, Tax Judge Martha Blood Wentworth affirmed, finding the final determination upholding the 2009 assessment is supported by substantial and reliable evidence and is not contrary to law. Grabbe failed to present evidence that would support his assessment under the four approaches.
In Vern R. Grabbe v. Carroll County Assessor, Neda K. Duff, 49T10-1206-TA-35, Wentworth also affirmed the application of the 2009 assessment to the 2010 tax year. Initially, the property was assessed at $306,900 for the 2010 tax year, an 11 percent increase over the previous year’s assessment. Grabbe challenged the values and presented the same four self-prepared analyses to show that the value should be $218,862. The board issued a final determination, valuing the property the same amount as the 2009 assessed value.
Wentworth found that application reasonable given that neither of the parties presented probative evidence as to the subject property’s market value-in-use for the 2010 tax year. As such, the board’s decision is not contrary to law.