P ETITIONER S APPEARING PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT :

LARRY G. JONES GREGORY F. ZOELLER SHARON F. JONES INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL Hanover, IN JESSICA E. REAGAN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Indianapolis, IN

_________________________________________________ ____________________ _ 

# IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT

_____________________________________________________________________ _ LARRY G. JONES and ) SHARON F. JONES , ) ) Petitioner s , ) ) v. ) Cause No. 3 9T10
- 1 308
- TA
- 00 0 68 ) JEFFERS ON COUNTY ASSESSOR , ) ) Respondent

. )

_____________________________________________________________________ _

ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW

FOR PUB LICATION May 4 , 201 6 WENTWORTH, J

. Larry G. and Sharon F. Jones challenge the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review that upheld the assessments of their real property for the 2008 and 2009 tax years (“years at issue”)

. Upon review, the Court affirms the Indiana Board ’s final determination

. F ACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Joneses own a single
- family dwelling situated on approximately 100 acres of farmland in Hanover, Indiana. In 2008 , their property was assessed at $501,4002

($105,900 for land and $395,500 for improvements) , and i n 2009, thei r assessment increased to $505,100 ($ 109,6 00 for land and $395,500 for improvements)

. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 73
- 74.) In April of 2011, the Joneses contacted the Jefferson Count y Assessor to explain that these assessments were based on the same “ critical ” error – the assumption that their residence was 100% complete as of the assessment date when it was not. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 137 .) The Assessor subsequently inspected the exterior of the property , determ ined that the residence appeared to be occupie d and complete, and referred the matter to the Jefferson County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA) for further action . ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 68
- 69, 111
- 14, 137
- 40, 143
- 44 .) On April 18, 2012, after conducting a hearing, the PTAB OA denied the Joneses ’ appeal

. The Joneses subsequently appealed to the Indiana Board. On May 1, 2013, the Indiana Board held a hearing during which the Joneses did not contest their land valuation, but claimed that their residence should have been assigned an a ssessed value of $0 during the years at issue. ( See, e.g. , Cert. Admin. R. at 2
- 3, 147, 151
- 52.) T he Joneses presented a two
- page document prepared by the former Trustee/Assessor of Hanover Township to support their claim . ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 66
- 67, 130
- 31 .) T he Trustee/Assessor explained that litigati on between the Joneses and the contractor building their house erupted in 2006 , leaving the residence uninhabitable and only 50% complete. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 66
- 69.) The Trustee/Assessor further stated that because the residence was still uninhabitable in 2008, it should not have been assessed. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 67.) In addition , t he Trustee/Assessor surmised that someone may have mistakenly assumed that the3

residence was complete because the Joneses owned another property in the same neighborhood for which they had applied for a homestead deduction

. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 66
- 67, 70
- 71 .) In response, the Assessor asserted that the Trustee/Assessor ’s document lacked probative value beca use it was not notarized and contained several unattributed handwritten alterations. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 144.) The Assessor also p resented an Appraisal that valued the Joneses’ entire property at $500,000 as of January 11, 2011, despite the fact that the construction of their residence was only 74.5% complete as of that date. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 77
- 101, 134, 140
- 42.) Finally, the Assessor argued that because the Joneses received a homestead deduction in 2008, it was reasonable to conclude that t hey live d in the residence at that time . ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 102
- 10, 142
- 44.) On July 17, 2013, the Indiana Board issued a final determination finding that the parties’ evidentiary presentations had established that the Joneses’ residence was assessed as if it were 100% complete during the years at issue when clearly it was not

. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 33
- 34 ¶ 28.) Nonetheless, the Indiana Board’s final determination found that the Joneses’ assessment s must stand because t heir primary evidence, the T rustee/Assessor’s document , was unreliable and provided insufficient support for their requested valuation of $0. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 31 ¶ 21 , 34
- 35 ¶ ¶ 29
- 31.) On August 28, 2013 , the Joneses initiated t his original tax appeal. Thereafter, the Assess or unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the Joneses’ appeal on the basis that they failed to timely request and file the certified administrative record. See generally4

Jones v. Jefferson Cnty. Assessor , 6 N.E.3d 1048 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014). On November 6, 2014, the Court heard oral argument on the merits

. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary. S TANDARD OF REVIEW The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Kildsig v. Warrick Cnty

. Assessor , 998 N.E.2d 764, 765 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013). The Court will reverse a final determination if it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunit y; in excess of or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of the procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence. I ND . C ODE § 33
- 26
- 6
- 6(e)(1)
- (5) (2016)

. LAW AND ANALYSIS On appeal, the Joneses assert that the Indiana Board’s final determination must be reversed because any other outcome would sanction the Assessor’s failure to adequately investigate their claim and reversal would correct two clearly erroneous assessments

. 1 ( See Pet’ rs’ Reply Br. at 1
- 2 ; Oral Arg. Tr. at 7
- 8 .) More s pecifically, the Joneses explain that because it is clear that their residence was incomplete and thus ineligible for assessment in 2008 and 2009 , the Assessor should have correct ed the
erroneous assessme nts by simply assigning their residence an assessed value of $0

1 T he Joneses submit ted to the Court a certificate of occupancy, paperwork regarding the delivery and storage of their personal effects, a permit for the installation of a septic system, and certain litigation paperwork , but conceded at oral argument that they did not submit any of these documents to the Indiana Board . ( See Pet’rs’ Reply Br. at 4
- 13 ; Oral Arg. Tr. at 4
- 5.) Accordingly, the Court may not consider them on appeal. See, e.g. , North Park Cinemas, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs , 689 N.E.2d 765, 768 (Ind. Tax C t. 1997) (declining to consider newly presented evidence).5

and refunding the property taxes collected on their home for the years at issue

. ( See Pet’rs’ Br. at 1
- 2; Oral Arg. Tr. at 6
- 9 .) T he Joneses ’ entire claim is based on the ir assumption that b ecause the construction of their residence was incomplete during the 2008 and 2009 tax years, the residence was ineligible for assessment during the years at issue and had no value

. Indiana Code § 6
- 1.1
- 2
- 1, however, provides that “all tangible property w hich is within the jurisdiction of this state on the assessment date of a year is subject to assessment and taxation for that year.” I ND
. C ODE § 6
- 1.1
- 2
- 1 (2008). Consequently, the Assessor was required to determine the true tax value ( i.e. , the market v alue
- in
- use) 2 of the Joneses’ residence for the years at issue. See I ND
. C ODE § 6
- 1.1
- 31
- 6(c) (2008); 2002 R EAL P ROPERTY A SSESSMENT M ANUAL (200 4 Reprint ) (Manual) (incorporated by reference at 50 I ND
. A DMIN
. C ODE 2.3
- 1
- 2 (2002 Supp.)) at 2 (providing that property is assessed based on its market value
- in
- use)

. ¶ Accordingly, the focus of this case concerns the valuation of the Joneses’ property, not the correction of an error as the Joneses claim

. Indiana has promulgated a series of guidelines that expla in the property valuation process in detail. See R EAL P ROPERTY A SSESSMENT G UIDELINES F OR 200 2
-- V ERSION A (2004 Reprint) (incorporated by reference at 50 I.A.C. 2.3
- 1
- 2), Bks

. 1 & 2. When , as here, an assessor has assessed real property pursuant to the gu idelines , her assessment is presumed accurate. Manual at 5. A taxpayer may rebut that presumption , however, with other market
- based evidence ( e.g. , sales data, appraisals,

2 Market value
- in
- use is defined as the value of a property “for its current use, as reflected by the utility received by the owner or a sim ilar user, from the property.” 2002 R EAL P ROPERTY A SSES SMENT M ANUAL (2004 Reprint ) (incorporated by reference at 50 I ND
. A DMIN
. C ODE 2.3
- 1
- 2 (2002 Supp.)) at 2.6

or actual construction costs ) that indicates the assessment is not an accurate ref lection of the property’s market value
- in
- use. See Manual at 5. The Joneses did not provide the Indiana Board with any market
- based evidence of their property’s market value
- in
use during their administrative hearing. ( See Cert. Admin. R. at 63
- 71.) Co nsequently, the Court has no market
- based evidence to review and finds no basis for reversing the Indiana Board’s final determination. CONCLUSION For the above
- stated reasons, the final deter mination of the Indiana Board is AFFIRMED.