id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-20657	Crist, Brian C.; Aft, Aaron; Touney, Gregory C.	Survey of Recent Reported Cases in Real Property Law	2015	60	.pdf	application/pdf	24923	1252	61	Since the Assessor waited until mid-December to raise an objection to this procedural defect and had numerous communications with the Tax Court following the mid-September deadline, the Tax Court found that the Assessor waived its objection to the timeliness of property owners’ administrative record request.138 D. Challenging an Assessment Based Upon Lack of Uniformity and Equality In Thorsness v. Porter County Assessor,139 the Tax Court considered the burden of proof and sufficiency of evidence required for a property owner’s appeal of a property assessment based upon a lack of uniformity.140 Thorsness arose out of a property owner’s challenge to the March 1, 2007 assessment of his residential property for $1,647,800, even though property owner had purchased the residential property for $1,650,000 on January 31, 2007.141 Property owner appealed this assessment to the county property tax assessment board on the basis that the assessment did not comply with the “uniform and equal” mandate of Indiana’s constitution, which appeal was denied.142 Before the Indiana Board, the property owner argued that his property was assessed at 99.9% of its sale price while six other residential properties in the same area had been assessed at an average of 79.5% of their recent sales prices. [Vol. 48:1395 deduction of property taxes as an expense was correct under generally accepted appraisal standards or why application of a twenty percent capitalization rate was appropriate.125 Lastly, the Tax Court determined that the property owner’s market data approach lacked probative value because the property owner failed to submit any evidence to explain how he calculated the valuation of comparable properties and structures.126 The Tax Court affirmed the Indiana Board’s final determination upholding the original $274,500 assessment as the property owner had offered no probative evidence that the original assessment was wrong.127 C. Indiana Tax Court Rule 3 Objections In Jones v. Jefferson County Assessor,128 the Tax Court considered whether an assessor’s failure to object to a property owner’s failure to file a request for a copy of an administrative record pursuant to Indiana Tax Court Rule 3 should bar a subsequent motion to dismiss filed by an assessor.129 Jones arose from property owners’ appeal of their residential real property assessments for the 2008 and 2009 tax years to the Indiana Board.130 After the Indiana Board issued a final determination upholding the original assessment, the property owners filed an appeal with the Tax Court challenging the decision.131 The Jefferson County Assessor’s (the “Assessor”) attorney filed his appearance and answer, and the Tax Court held a telephonic case management conference and ordered the parties to submit their briefs on the merits of the case.132 Property owners timely filed their initial brief, and the Assessor filed a motion to dismiss along with a response brief.133 However, instead of addressing the merits of the case, the Assessor’s brief argued that the motion to dismiss should be granted, because property owners did not timely request the Indiana Board to prepare a certified copy of its administrative record as required under Indiana Tax Court Rule 3.134 The Tax Court held that the Assessor waived its objection to property owners’ failure to timely request the administrative record.135 In this instance, property owners failed to timely request that the Indiana Board prepare a certified copy of the agency record by mid-September as required under Indiana Tax Court Rule 3.136 The Tax Court noted that “[t]hrough a series of cases, the Indiana Supreme Court has held that a failure to timely file the administrative 125.	cache/inlawrev-20657.pdf	txt/inlawrev-20657.txt