Opinion ID: 1782662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Was the Valuation Inequitable?

Text: The taxpayers claim their property was assessed at a higher percentage of fair market value than comparable properties in the taxing district. See Iowa Code § 441.37(1) (allowing taxpayer to protest assessment as not equitable as compared with assessments of other like property in the taxing district). When this ground is relied on, the complainant must prove (1) that there are several other properties within the assessment district similar and comparable to the one at issue, (2) the amount of the assessments on those properties, (3) the actual value of the comparable properties, (4) the actual value of the property at issue, (5) the assessment complained of, and (6) that by a comparison the property at issue is assessed at a higher proportion of its actual value than the ratio existing between the assessed and actual valuations of the similar and comparable properties, thus creating a discrimination. Riso, 362 N.W.2d at 517. As with a claim of excessiveness, if the property owner produces competent evidence by two disinterested witnesses that the market value is too high because it is inequitable, the burden of proof shifts to the board of review. Id. at 518. After reviewing the record, we conclude the taxpayers did not introduce the testimony of two disinterested witnesses that the valuation of the subject property was inequitable when compared with similar properties in Floyd County. Therefore, the burden of proof did not shift to the Board. Our review also convinces us the taxpayers did not meet their burden to prove the elements of their challenge based on the alleged inequitable assessment of their property.