t the Internet Archive. Yahoo! is not affiliated with the authors of this page or responsible for its content.
BEFORE THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW
TNT-Holland Motor Express Inc.


Page 1 of 9
REPRESENTATIVE FOR PETITIONER:
Carla Bishop, Meritax Property Tax Consultants

REPRESENTATIVE FOR RESPONDENT:
John Gerard, Center Township Assessor


BEFORE THE
INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW

TNT-Holland Motor Express Inc.,
)
Petition No.:
82-019-02-1-3-00261

)
Parcel:

02-170-02-477-007
Petitioner,

)
)



v.


)





)
County:

Vanderburgh
John Gerard,


)
Township:

Center
Center Township Assessor

)
Assessment Year:
2002





)
Respondent.
)



Appeal from the Final Determination of
Vanderburgh County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals
______________________________________________________________________________


September 25, 2006


FINAL DETERMINATION

The Indiana Board of Tax Review (the Board) having reviewed the facts and evidence, and
having considered the issues, now finds and concludes the following:

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

I
SSUE


1.

The issue presented for consideration by the Board was whether the assessed value of the
subject property exceeds its market value in use.
TNT-Holland Motor Express Inc.


Page 2 of 9
P
ROCEDURAL
H
ISTORY


2.

Pursuant to Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-3, Carla Bishop with Meritax Property Tax Consultants,
on behalf of TNT-Holland Motor Express Inc. (the Petitioner), filed a Form 131 Petition
for Review of Assessment on September 24, 2004, petitioning the Board to conduct an
administrative review of the above petition. The Vanderburgh County Property Tax
Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA) issued its determination on September 3, 2004.


H
EARING
F
ACTS AND
O
THER
M
ATTERS OF
R
ECORD


3.

Pursuant to Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-4 and § 6-1.5-4-1, the duly designated Administrative
Law Judge (the ALJ) Debra Eads, held a hearing on April 5, 2006, in Evansville, Indiana.

4.

The following persons were sworn and presented testimony at the hearing:
For the Petitioner:
Carla Bishop, Tax Representative

For the Respondent:
1

John Gerard, Center Township Assessor
Donald Cobb, Center Township Real Estate Deputy Assessor

5.

The Petitioner presented the following exhibits:
Petitioner Exhibit 1 Summary of Issues
Petitioner Exhibit 2 Information concerning 201 N. Congress Avenue
Petitioner Exhibit 3 Sales Information on similar properties in Indianapolis
Petitioner Exhibit 4 Copy of the Form 131 Petition

6.

The Respondent presented the following exhibits:
Respondent Exhibit 1 Narrative of Respondents contentions

7.

The following additional items are officially recognized as part of the record of
proceedings and labeled Board Exhibits:
Board Exhibit A Form 131 Petition
Board Exhibit B Notice of Hearing dated January 23, 2006


1
Tiffany Collins of the Vandenberg County Assessors Office was also in attendance as an observer.
TNT-Holland Motor Express Inc.


Page 3 of 9
Board Exhibit C Notice of County Assessor appearance
Board Exhibit D Hearing Sign-In Sheet

8.

The subject property is a commercial truck terminal located at 8901 N. Kentucky Avenue
in Center Township, Evansville, Indiana.

9.

The ALJ did not conduct an on-site inspection of the subject property.

10.

For 2002, the PTABOA determined the assessed value of the subject property to be
$278,200 for the land and $599,800 for the improvements, for a total assessed value of
$878,000.

11.

For 2002, the Petitioner contends the assessed value of the property should be no more
than $540,000.

J
URISDICTIONAL
F
RAMEWORK


12.

The Indiana Board is charged with conducting an impartial review of all appeals
concerning: (1) the assessed valuation of tangible property; (2) property tax deductions;
and (3) property tax exemptions; that are made from a determination by an assessing
official or a county property tax assessment board of appeals to the Indiana board under
any law. Ind. Code § 6-1.5-4-1(a). All such appeals are conducted under Ind. Code § 6-
1.1-15. See Ind. Code § 6-1.5-4-1(b); Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-4.

A
DMINISTRATIVE
R
EVIEW AND THE
P
ETITIONER S
B
URDEN


13.

A Petitioner seeking review of a determination of an assessing official has the burden to
establish a prima facie case proving that the current assessment is incorrect, and
specifically what the correct assessment would be. See Meridian Towers East & West v.
Washington Twp. Assessor
, 805 N.E.2d 475, 478 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003);

see also,

Clark v.
State Bd. of Tax Commrs,
694 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).

TNT-Holland Motor Express Inc.


Page 4 of 9
14.

In making its case, the taxpayer must explain how each piece of evidence is relevant to
the requested assessment. See Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. Washington Twp.
Assessor
, 802 N.E.2d 1018, 1022 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004) ([I]t is the taxpayer's duty to walk
the Indiana Board . . . through every element of the analysis).

15.

Once the Petitioner establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the assessing
official to rebut the Petitioners evidence. See American United Life Ins. Co. v. Maley,
803 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004). The assessing official must offer evidence that
impeaches or rebuts the Petitioners evidence. Id; Meridian Towers, 805 N.E.2d at 479.

A
NALYSIS



16.

The Petitioner contends that the assessment of the subject property exceeds its market-
value-in-use based on the truck terminal market in Indianapolis and a sale of a
purportedly comparable property located at 201 N. Congress Avenue in Evansville.
Bishop testimony.
The Petitioner relies on a per door valuation of truck terminal sales
in Evansville and Indianapolis. Id.

17.

The Respondent contends that the current assessment of the subject property is correct.
Cobb testimony.
The Respondent further argues that the Petitioner submitted insufficient
evidence to support a change from the assessed value determined through the cost
approach. Id. Finally, the Respondent contends, the Petitioners price per door method
of assessment is not a generally accepted assessment method in Indiana. Id.

18.

The Petitioner presented the following evidence and testimony in regard to this issue:

A.
The Petitioner contends that the subject property is over-valued on the basis of a
comparable sale in Evansville. According to the Petitioner, the subject property is
a truck terminal with 34 doors and whose current assessed value ($878,300)
represents a value of $25,833 per door. Bishop testimony. The Petitioner argues that
a 40 door truck terminal of similar construction and of the same use was sold in an
TNT-Holland Motor Express Inc.


Page 5 of 9
arms length transaction on January 21, 2004, for $635,000 or $15,875 per door.
2

Bishop testimony; Petitioner Exhibit 2.
However, the Petitioner admitted the
comparison property was in a superior location and of a different age than the subject
property. Id. The Petitioner concludes that the subject property should be assessed
for $540,000, or $15,875 per door, on the basis of this sale. Bishop testimony.

B.
The Petitioner also argues that the subject property is over-valued compared to truck
terminal sales in Indianapolis. According to the Petitioner, sales in Indianapolis
ranged from $19,662 per door to $23,529 per door. Bishop testimony. The Petitioner
contends, these sales values are significantly lower than the assessed value currently
assigned to the subject property. Id.

C.
The Petitioner further contends that a per door price as a unit of comparison
between properties is a proper method of comparison. Bishop testimony. The
Petitioner Representative testified that, according to the client, the price per door is
how truck terminal operators buy, sell, and trade truck terminal properties. Id. The
Petitioner argues that the age of a truck terminal has little impact in a properties
value. Id. In support of this contention, the Petitioner offered into evidence Exhibit 3
to illustrate that the age of a truck terminal makes very little difference in the
resulting market value per door price. Id.; Petitioner Exhibit 3.

19.

The Respondent presented the following evidence and testimony in regard to this issue:

A.
The Respondent contends the Petitioner does not establish the comparability of the
properties being examined. Cobb testimony. According to the Respondent, the
Petitioner does not identify characteristics of the purportedly comparable properties
and explain how the differences between the properties affect their relative market

2
The Petitioner also argues that the comparable is assessed at $479,600, which equates to $11,990 per door.
Bishop testimony.


TNT-Holland Motor Express Inc.


Page 6 of 9
values-in-use. Id. Further, the Respondent argues, the Petitioner provided no
comparison of the comparable properties other than the