Opinion ID: 1730025
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Taxpayer's Opinions Regarding Quality, Condition, and Value

Text: DRI argues that TERC failed to properly consider the taxpayers' opinions and those of its expert regarding the quality, condition, and value of the subject properties. TERC determined that Gary's testimony regarding the quality and condition of the properties was not related to any specific criteria or standards. The record supports this determination. When asked on cross-examination what he considered low quality, he replied, I don't have the definition of it. It would be just my definition. He conceded that what he might consider to be low quality, someone else might consider average. He could not say if his definition of fair was the same as that utilized by Marshall & Swift. In contrast, Newell's testimony regarding the quality and condition of the subject properties was based on the Marshall & Swift criteria. She agreed with the assessor's determination of the average quality and condition of the parents' house, but her ratings of the other properties were somewhat lower than those of the appraiser. For example, Newell testified that she observed mold in the labor house and rated the condition of the structure as fair, compared to the assessor's rating of average. Newell acknowledged that the determination of quality and condition was somewhat subjective and that the opinions of qualified appraisers with respect to the same property could vary. As noted, Newell expressed no opinion of the value of any of the subject properties, and the record therefore does not indicate whether or how Newell's opinions regarding quality and condition would affect values as determined by the assessor and the Board. The conflicting testimony regarding condition, quality, and value of the subject properties reflected nothing more than differences of opinion, with no correlation to value even if Newell's opinions were accepted. Although Newell gave no opinions of value, Gary did. A resident owner who is familiar with his or her property and knows its worth is permitted to testify as to its value without further foundation. [21] This principle rests upon the owner's familiarity with the property's characteristics, its actual and potential uses, and the owner's experience in dealing with it. [22] Similarly, a corporate officer may be competent to offer an opinion of value, provided the officer is familiar with the property and has knowledge of general values in the vicinity. [23] When a county board of equalization has determined the value of the property, uniformly and impartially assessed through a formula in substantial compliance with statutes governing taxation, for reversal of the board's action, a taxpayer must show more than a difference of opinion concerning the assessed value of the taxpayer's real estate. [24] Gary resided in one of the subject properties and was the president of the corporation which owned each of them. He did not utilize the Marshall & Swift valuation system in arriving at his opinions of the value of each property. His opinions were based upon his knowledge of unidentified other properties and just a judgment call on my part of those experiences of having bought property and sold property in this area. He offered no details of any valuation or sales of comparable residential property. When asked on cross-examination how he arrived at the value of the residence occupied by his family, he replied: Well, I don't want to get into it, but I have my own little formula that I use toon depreciation and so forth. It has nothing to do with the way the State does it or anybody else does and that's what I came up with. The record supports TERC's finding that the taxpayer's evidence of actual value was not persuasive.