ILNews

Board did not abuse discretion in finding assessor’s appraisal more persuasive

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Noting that determining the assessed value of a property is not an exact science, the Indiana Tax Court rejected a property owner’s assertion that the county assessor’s appraisal was improperly given greater weight.  

In Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC v Assessor, Benton County, Indiana, 49T10-1008-TA-42, the Tax Court affirmed the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination in upholding the real property assessments of Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC.   

For the 2008 tax year, the Benton County assessor assigned property owned by Millennium Real Estate Investment, LLC a total assessed value of $639,800. Millennium believed the assessments were too high and sought review first with the Benton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and then the IBTR.

At the IBTR hearing, Millennium offered its appraisal estimated the value of the property at $325,000 as of March 1, 2008, and stated that the property was sold in December 2003 for $182,000. Also, the petitioner presented an Asset Purchase Agreement showing that it purchased its property for $193,817 on June 30, 2008.

The assessor presented an appraisal which valued the property at $640,000 as of Jan. 10, 2007.

After the IBTR upheld the assessment in July 2010, Millennium appealed on two grounds. First, Millennium claims the IBTR ignored its December 2003 sales evidence and improperly discounted its June 2008 sales evidence. Second, Millennium claims the IBTR erred in assigning greater weight to the assessor’s appraisal.

On the first claim, the Tax Court found that Millennium did not show that the IBTR erred with respect to the December 2003 sales evidence claim. Also Millennium’s June 2008 sales evidence does not probatively demonstrate that its 2008 assessments were incorrect.

On the second claim, the court ruled that the IBTR did not abuse its discretion in finding the assessor’s appraisal more persuasive than Millennium’s appraisal despite their differences.

Specifically, the court rejected the argument that the assessor’s appraisal utilized an improper assessment standard in estimating the value of Millennium property. The court also found Millennium’s argument unpersuasive that the IBTR should have determined that its appraisal better reflected the value of its property.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT