Nova Tube Indiana II LLC v. Clark County Assessor , 101 N.E.3d 887 ( 2018 )

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
BRENT A. AUBERRY CURTIS T. HILL, JR.
BENJAMIN A. BLAIR ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP BENJAMIN J. LEGGE
Indianapolis, IN WINSTON LIN
ALEKSANDRINA P. PRATT
DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL
Indianapolis, IN
IN THE
INDIANA TAX COURT FILED
May 18 2018, 2:22 pm
CLERK
NOVA TUBE INDIANA II LLC, ) Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Cause No. 49T10-1708-TA-00013
)
CLARK COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF
THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW
FOR PUBLICATION
May 18, 2018
WENTWORTH, J.
Nova Tube Indiana II, LLC appeals the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final
determination, which upheld the assessments of its real property for the 2011, 2012, and
2013 tax years. Upon review, the Court reverses the Indiana Board’s final determination.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
During the years at issue, Nova Tube owned two parcels of land in Clark County,
Jeffersonville, Indiana. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 451-59.) Together, the parcels were
comprised of 29.1 acres of land with rail spurs that provided access to the nearby railroad
and a 109,443 square foot industrial warehouse. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 195, 215, 616-
17, 622-624.)
In 2010, the property was assessed at $2,245,900. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 452,
459.) In 2011, however, the Clark County Assessor increased the property’s assessment
by over 50%, assigning it a total assessed value of $4,653,100. (See Cert. Admin. R. at
452, 459, 522.) Over the next two years, the property’s assessments increased
incrementally, with it being assessed at $4,767,200 in 2012 and $4,767,300 in 2013. (See
Cert. Admin. R. at 522-23.)
On October 3, 2013, Nova Tube appealed its assessments for the years at issue
to the Clark County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (the PTABOA). In May
of 2014, while the appeals were still pending with the PTABOA, Nova Tube sold the
property to the Port of Indiana for $6,125,000. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 650-54.) The
PTABOA subsequently affirmed all three of Nova Tube’s assessments.
Nova Tube appealed the PTABOA’s determinations to the Indiana Board on July
18, 2014. After conducting a hearing on the appeals, the Indiana Board issued a final
determination in the matter on June 30, 2017. In that final determination, the Indiana
Board explained that with respect to the 2011 appeal, the Assessor bore the burden of
proving that the assessment increase was correct under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2.1
(See Cert. Admin. R. at 97-98 ¶ 36.) The Indiana Board then determined that the
Assessor met her burden because the evidence that the property was sold in a “market
1
Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2, commonly referred to as “the burden-shifting rule,” provides that
if the assessment of the same property increases by more than 5% from one year to the next, the
assessor bears the burden of proving that the assessment is correct. See Orange Cnty. Assessor
v. Stout, 996 N.E.2d 871, 873 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013); IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-17.2 (2014). Compare
with IND. CODE § 6.1.1-15-1(l) (2014) (explaining that otherwise, the taxpayer bears the burden of
demonstrating that the assessment is incorrect) (repealed 2017).
2
value” transaction in May 2014 and that the market was relatively stable during the years
at issue supported her assessment values. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 97 ¶¶ 34-35, 99-102
¶¶ 41-46.) Consequently, the burden shifted to Nova Tube to rebut the Assessor’s prima
facie case. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 101-02 ¶ 46.)
In its rebuttal presentation, Nova Tube asserted that the May 2014 sale was not a
market value transaction because the buyer, the Port of Indiana, was atypically motivated
given that it was a government entity that already owned “the vast majority of the land in
that area[,]” including land adjacent to Nova Tube’s property. (See Cert. Admin. R. at
100-01 ¶ 43, 651-57.) Nova Tube also asserted that the Assessor had admitted that the
May 2014 sales price did not actually reflect the property’s market value-in-use because
the property record cards stated that the sale was “invalid.” (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R.
at 596-601, 656-57.) Finally, Nova Tube presented an appraisal, completed in
conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP),
that valued the property at $2,900,000 for 2011. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 194-280,
561-62, 644-806.)
The Indiana Board weighed the competing evidence and determined that Nova
Tube did not persuasively rebut the Assessor’s prima facie case, explaining that the lack
of support for certain adjustments and valuations in Nova Tube’s 2011 appraisal,
particularly the land valuations, had diminished its probative value. (See Cert. Admin. R.
at 102-03 ¶¶ 47-53.) Consequently, the Indiana Board upheld the property’s 2011
assessment of $4,653,100. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 100-05 ¶¶ 43-46, 54-57.)
With respect to Nova Tube’s 2012 and 2013 appeals, the Indiana Board did not
state which party bore the burden of proof; rather, it stated that the Assessor had made
3
a prima facie case for 2012 and 2013 by using the same evidence offered to support her
2011 assessment. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 101-02 ¶ 46.) The Indiana Board determined
that Nova Tube’s 2012 and 2013 appraisals, which valued the property at $3,000,000 for
2012 and $3,100,000 for 2013, did not persuasively rebut the Assessor’s prima facie case
because they suffered from the same infirmities as its 2011 appraisal. (See Cert. Admin.
R. at 101-04 ¶¶ 46-53, 55.) (See also Cert. Admin. R. at 836-37, 859-60.) Accordingly,
the Indiana Board also upheld the property’s 2012 assessment of $4,767,200 as well as
its 2013 assessment of $4,767,300. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 104-05 ¶ 57.)
On July 17, 2017, Nova Tube filed a Request for Rehearing. (See Cert. Admin. R.
at 106-17.) On July 31, 2017, the Indiana Board denied Nova Tube’s Request for
Rehearing. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 123-26.)
On August 11, 2017, Nova Tube initiated this original tax appeal. The Court heard
oral argument on February 14, 2018. Additional facts will be supplied if necessary.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The party seeking to overturn a final determination of the Indiana Board bears the
burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Osolo Twp. Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane
Assocs., 789 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003). Thus, Nova Tube must demonstrate
to the Court that the Indiana Board’s final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse
of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right,
power, privilege, or immunity; 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. See IND. CODE § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (2018).
4
ANALYSIS
On appeal, Nova Tube asks the Court to reverse the Indiana Board’s final
determination, claiming it is contrary to law, unsupported by substantial or reliable
evidence, and constitutes an abuse of discretion. (See, e.g., Oral Arg. Tr. at 11; Pet’r
Initial Br. (“Pet’r Br.”) at 15-16, 21-22.) More specifically, Nova Tube contends that the
Indiana Board erred in upholding the assessments because the Assessor did not meet
her initial burden of proving that the assessment increases were correct given that: 1)
she failed to demonstrate that the property sold in a market value transaction in May 2014;
and 2) she failed to relate the property’s May 2014 sales price to the relevant valuation
dates.2 (See Pet’r Br. at 12-22; Pet’r Reply Br. at 13-14.)
1. Market Value Transaction
During the years at issue, Indiana defined “market value” for purposes of its
property tax assessment system as:
The most probable price, as of a specified date, in cash, or in terms
equivalent to cash, or in other precisely revealed terms, for which the
specified property rights should sell after reasonable exposure in a
competitive market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, with
the buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and for
self-interest, and assuming that neither is under undue duress.
2011 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL (“2011 Manual”) (incorporated by reference
at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.4-1-2 (2011)) at 5-6. The definition specified the conditions
required for fair sales, including that the buyer and seller be typically motivated, without
2
Nova Tube also claims that the Indiana Board violated a fundamental appraisal principle by
finding that the May 2014 sale corroborated the assessment increases because the evidence
failed to indicate whether it was reasonable to deem a sale occurring up to three years after the
relevant valuation dates as probative of the property’s market value-in-use for the years at issue.
(See Pet’r Initial Br. (“Pet’r Br.”) at 22-25.) The Court will not address this issue because the case
is resolved on other grounds.
5
duress, compulsion, or pressure to act. See id. Accord 2002 REAL PROPERTY
ASSESSMENT MANUAL (2004 Reprint) (“2002 Manual”) (incorporated by reference at 50
IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.3-1-2 (2002 Supp.) (repealed 2010)) at 10 (defining “market value”);
Marion Cnty. Assessor v. Simon DeBartolo Group, LP, 52 N.E.3d 65, 70-71 (Ind. Tax Ct.
2016) (construing Indiana’s definition of market value); INT’L ASS’N OF ASSESSING
OFFICERS, PROPERTY ASSESSMENT VALUATION 100 (2nd ed. 1996) (stating that market
value sales require, among other things, that buyers and sellers be typically motivated).
Nova Tube accordingly maintains that to establish that a sale is a market value
transaction one must, among other things, show that the parties to the transaction are
typically motivated. (See Pet’r Br. at 12; Pet’r Reply Br. at 10-11.) Nova Tube claims that
because the evidence in this case indisputably showed that the buyer, the Port of Indiana,
was atypically motivated, the Indiana Board abused its discretion in finding that the May
2014 sale was a market value transaction. (See, e.g., Pet’r Reply Br. at 1; Oral Arg. Tr.
at 11.) Indeed, Nova Tube maintains the Port of Indiana’s atypical motivation was
manifest given its status as both a government entity and adjacent landowner. (See, e.g.,
Pet’r Reply Br. at 7-11.) Moreover, Nova Tube claims that the parties’ expert witnesses
agreed that the Port of Indiana was atypically motivated during the administrative hearing
and that the Assessor tacitly conceded the point by noting on the property record cards
that the sale was “invalid” for purposes of the mass appraisal process. (See Pet’r Br. at
15-20.) Nova Tube further asserts that the Assessor failed to rebut its evidence because
she focused on factors unrelated to a buyer’s atypical motivation, namely whether the
property was sold in an “arm’s length” or “open market” transaction. (See Pet’r Br. at 13-
16; Pet’r Reply Br. at 9-11.) Nova Tube’s claims, however, are unpersuasive for three
6
reasons.
First, the certified administrative record reveals that both parties’ expert witnesses
stated that the mere fact that one of the parties to a transaction is a government entity or
adjacent landowner does not in itself demonstrate that the party is atypically motivated.
(See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 905-07, 937-39, 967, 972-78 (providing that sales to
government entities and adjacent landowners may be used to appraise property under
certain conditions, e.g., after researching the sale to verify that it reflects a property’s
market value).) Moreover, the International Association of Assessing Officers’ 2007
Standard on Ratio Studies provides that sales to government agencies may be used in
performing a ratio study3 after researching the sales to verify that they are market value
transactions. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 114.) Here, the Assessor initially deemed the May
2014 sale of the subject property invalid for use in the mass appraisal/ratio study process
presumably because the sales disclosure form indicated that the buyer was both a
government entity and adjacent landowner. (See Cert. Admin. R. 469-72, 955-68.) Upon
a more in-depth investigation, however, she determined that the May 2014 sale was
equivalent to a market value transaction that supported her assessment increases. (See
Cert. Admin. R. at 976-77, 1009-10.)
Second, while Nova Tube asserts that the parties’ expert witnesses agreed that
the Port of Indiana was atypically motivated, it has not cited the portion of the record
containing that agreement, (see generally, e.g., Pet’r Br.), and this Court’s review of the
3
A ratio study is “[a] study of the relationship between [properties’] appraised or assessed values
and market values. Indicators of market values may be either sales (sales ratio study) or
independent ‘expert’ appraisals (appraisal ratio study). Of common interest in ratio studies are
the level of uniformity of the appraisal or assessments.” 2011 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
MANUAL (“2011 Manual”) (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.4-1-2 (2011)) at 6.
7
record uncovered no such agreement. The totality of the evidence, therefore, does not
support Nova Tube’s claim that the Assessor’s notation on the property record cards was
an admission of the Port of Indiana’s atypical motivation and her acknowledgment that
the May 2014 sales price was inconsistent with the property’s market value for all
purposes. (See Pet’r Br. at 16-19; Oral Arg. Tr. at 33.)
Finally, the parties offered conflicting evidence on the issue of whether the
property’s May 2014 sale constituted a market value transaction. (Compare, e.g., Cert.
Admin. R. at 650-54 with Cert. Admin. R. at 972-76.) Nova Tube presented evidence that
indicated the May 2014 sale was not a market value transaction. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin.
R. at 650-54, 656-57, 1026-28 (indicating that the Port of Indiana was the sole party
interested in purchasing the property, that its business model was to purchase all nearby
land to control its use, and that the property record cards stated that the May 2014 sale
was “invalid”).) Conversely, the Assessor presented evidence that: a) the property’s
asking price of $6,950,000 was based on an independent appraisal, b) the property sold
after being on the market for 373 days, c) there were “a number of lookers[,]” d) the
property ultimately sold for $825,000 less than the asking price, and e) the personal
property (i.e., cranes) advertised as part of the sale were not actually included in the sale.
(See Cert. Admin. R. at 473-76, 972-76, 1007-09.) The record indicates that the Indiana
Board considered and weighed the competing evidence, making its finding based on the
facts and circumstances before it. Thus, this Court cannot reweigh the evidence on this
issue and replace the Indiana Board’s finding with one of its own. See, e.g., Hubler Realty
Co. v. Hendricks Cnty. Assessor, 938 N.E.2d 311, 315 n.5 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010) (providing
that an abuse of discretion occurs when the Indiana Board either misinterprets the law or
8
acted clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it).
Accordingly, the Court finds that the Indiana Board’s determination is supported by
substantial evidence, and it did not abuse its discretion in finding that Nova Tube’s
property sold in a market value transaction in May 2014.
2. Relationship to the Valuation Dates
Nova Tube also claims that the Indiana Board abused its discretion in finding,
contrary to law, that the May 2014 sales price was sufficiently related to each of the
relevant valuation dates because the Assessor did not trend that sale and affirmatively
link the sales price to the valuation dates. (See Pet’r Br. at 22-23; Pet’r Reply Br. at 13-
14; Oral Arg. Tr. at 29-31.) “Trending” is the process that applies an adjustment factor4
to the value of a property to estimate its market value-in-use on a specific date. See, e.g.,
50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 27-5-1 (2018).
The Assessor, on the other hand, contends that Nova Tube’s claim is meritless
because she demonstrated to the Indiana Board that trending was unnecessary. (See,
e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 516.) More specifically, the Assessor explains that she presented
evidence that the rate of growth in the market ranged from only 0% to 1% between 2011
and 2013, as the market continued to recover from the recession, and that the pattern of
limited growth continued in 2014. (See Resp’t Br. at 14-15; Oral Arg. Tr. at 39-45.)
When, as here, a taxpayer appeals an assessment that increased by more than
5% from one year to the next, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 automatically shifts the
4
In determining the adjustment factor, assessing officials typically use sales of properties in
certain neighborhoods, areas, or classes that “ideally [occurred] not more than fourteen (14)
months before the March 1 assessment and valuation date.” 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 27-5-2(a)
(2018).
9
burden of proof5 from the taxpayer to the assessing official. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-
17.2 (2014). Accordingly, the assessing official bears the initial burden of proving to the
Indiana Board that the assessment increase, and thus the assessment, is correct.
See id. To meet its initial burden, the assessing official must submit evidence relevant to
the property’s market value-in-use (i.e., the property’s value “for its current use, as
reflected by the utility received by the owner or by a similar user, from the property”) for
the appropriate valuation date.6 See 2011 Manual at 2 (stating that March 1 is the
valuation date for the years at issue). Consequently, the Assessor had to demonstrate
that the evidence supporting her assessment increases reflected the subject property’s
market value-in-use as of the March 1, 2011, 2012, and 2013 valuation dates as a matter
of law. See 2011 Manual at 2.
In support of her assessment increases, the Assessor provided information about
general industrial market trends, residential demographics (e.g., population, income, and
sales activities), and building permits issued between 2009 and 2013.7 (See Cert. Admin.
R. at 477-508, 980-81, 989-98.) Her evidence also indicated that the market was
recovering from the recession between 2009 and 2014. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 125,
5
For purposes of Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2, the term “burden of proof” refers to the burden
of production (i.e., “‘[a] party’s duty to introduce enough evidence on an issue to have the issue
decided by the fact-finder, rather than decided against [it] in a peremptory ruling’”). See Peters v.
Garoffolo, 32 N.E.3d 847, 852 n.6 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (citations omitted).
6
Indeed, it is well-established that when a taxpayer challenges the accuracy of an assessment,
he likewise must show that his evidence reflects his property’s market value-in use as of the
appropriate valuation date. See, e.g., Marion Cnty. Assessor v. Simon DeBartolo Group, LP, 52
N.E.3d 65, 69-70 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2016); Big Foot Stores LLC v. Franklin Twp. Assessor, 919 N.E.2d
621, 625-26 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2009); O’Donnell v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 854 N.E.2d 90, 95 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 2006).
7
While the Indiana Board’s transcript indicates that this evidence is contained in Respondent’s
Exhibit G, the actual exhibit is marked as Respondent’s Exhibit C. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at
iii, 477, 978-79.)
10
493, 995-97.) The Assessor’s evidence showed both that the market was relatively stable
from 2009 to 2014 (no more than 1% annual rate of growth in real estate values from
2011 to 2013) and that the difference between the property’s 2013 assessment of
$4,653,100 and its 2014 sales price of $6,125,000 represented roughly a 22% increase
in value. (See, e.g., Oral Arg. Tr. at 43.) Nonetheless, the Assessor’s evidence failed to
show that the property’s May 2014 sales price was directly related to any of the
appropriate valuation dates for the years at issue. Moreover, the evidence did not indicate
why the property’s 2011 assessment of $4,653,100, which was more than double its 2010
assessment of $2,245,900, was correct given that the evidence showed that the market’s
general growth was relatively flat from 2009 to 2014.
The Assessor also urges the Court to affirm the Indiana Board’s finding as to this
issue based on the proximate relationship between the property’s assessments of
$4,653,100 in 2011, $4,767,200 in 2012, and $4,767,300 in 2013 and its May 2014 sales
price of $6,125,000. (See Oral Arg. Tr. at 43-45.) The Assessor explains that the 22%
increase in value from one year to the next is of little consequence because all these
figures are close in value. (See Oral Arg. Tr. at 43-45.) The Assessor further states that
to the extent the property was overvalued when it sold in May 2014, that fact would simply
increase the reliability of her assessments because she did not request that the property
be assessed at that higher value. (See Resp’t Br. at 14.) Consequently, the Assessor
claims that the Indiana Board, consistent with both its own and this Court’s case law,
appropriately relied on an objective indicator of value (i.e., the May 2014 sales price) and
the figures closer to the objective measure rather than the figures derived from three
subjective indicators of value (i.e., Nova Tube’s appraisals). (See Resp’t Br. at 12-15
11
(citing Hubler Realty Co. v. Hendricks Cnty. Assessor, Nos. 32-012-06-1-4-00015, et al.,
(Ind. Bd. Tax Review Dec. 17, 2009); Fisher v. Carroll Cnty. Assessor, 74 N.E.3d 582(Ind. Tax Ct. 2017)).) The Assessor’s claims, however, are unpersuasive for the following
reasons.
Initially, while the property’s May 2014 sales price and the assessments at issue
are relatively close in value, it is equally true that the property’s 2010 assessment of
$2,245,900 and its appraised values of $2,9000,000 for 2011, $3,000,000 for 2012, and
$3,100,000 for 2013 are similarly close in value. Thus, the mere proximity of certain
figures does not indicate whether an assessment reflects a property’s market value-in-
use as of a specific valuation date.
In addition, the cases that the Assessor cited as support for her position are not
persuasive here because their facts and issues on appeal fundamentally differ from the
facts and issues on appeal in this case. Specifically, in Hubler Realty the Indiana Board
found that the parties’ evidence, which consisted of an appraisal and sales data, was
probative because the stated valuations were deemed to be contemporaneous to the
relevant valuation date (i.e., within three to five months of the relevant valuation date).
See Hubler Realty, No. 32-012-06-1-4-000115, slip op., at 7 ¶ 15(g). The Indiana Board’s
finding as to the probative value of that evidence was not challenged on appeal. See
Hubler Realty, 938 N.E.2d at 313-14. In this case, however, the Indiana Board did not
base the probative value of the May 2014 sales price on a temporal proximity to the March
1 valuation dates at issue. Moreover, the Indiana Board’s finding regarding the probative
value of the May 2014 sales evidence has been challenged on appeal due in large part
to this lack of proximity and failure to analyze the direct relationship between that sale
12
and each of the March 1 valuation dates. Accordingly, Hubler Realty does not support
the Assessor’s position.
With respect to the Fisher case, the Court upheld an assessing official’s
assessment increases because they were corroborated by her market-based evidence:
i.e., two appraisals that valued a taxpayer’s property on the relevant valuation dates for
amounts that exceeded both assessments. See, e.g., Fisher, 74 N.E.3d at 585-86. In
this case, however, the Assessor’s market-based evidence, the May 2014 sales data,
only indicates the value of Nova Tube’s property on the date of sale because the Assessor
did not trend that sale or provide other market-based evidence that affirmatively related
the sales price to the March 1 valuation dates. Accordingly, Fisher does not support the
Assessor’s position either. Therefore, the Court finds that the Indiana Board abused its
discretion by finding that the May 2014 sales price was sufficiently related to each of the
March 1 valuation dates. See Peters v. Garoffolo, 32 N.E.3d 847, 852 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015)
(providing that a prima facie case is one in which the evidence is “‘sufficient to establish
a given fact and which if not contradicted will remain sufficient’” (citation omitted).)
Consequently, the Assessor did not meet her initial burden of proving that her assessment
increases were correct.
Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 provides that when an assessing official fails to meet
her burden of proof, a taxpayer may present evidence to prove the actual market value-
in-use of its property. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-17.2(b). During the administrative hearing,
Nova Tube offered three appraisals to establish that its property should be valued at
$2,9000,000 for 2011, $3,000,000 for 2012, and $3,100,000 for 2013. (See, e.g., Cert.
Admin. R. at 194-450.) The Indiana Board found that each of the appraisals, despite
13
certain flaws, had probative value. (See Cert. Admin. R. at Cert. Admin. R. at 103-04 ¶¶
54-55.) While the Assessor has restated the Indiana Board’s criticisms of Nova Tube’s
appraisals on appeal, she has not challenged the Indiana Board’s finding as to their
overall probative value. (Compare Resp’t Br. at 15-17 with Cert. Admin. R. at 102-03 ¶¶
47-53.) Therefore, the Court concludes that Nova Tube’s property should be assessed
at $2,9000,000 for 2011, $3,000,000 for 2012, and $3,100,000 for 2013.
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, the final determination of the Indiana Board is
REVERSED. The matter is REMANDED to the Indiana Board so that it may instruct the
appropriate assessing officials to assess the subject property consistent with this opinion.
14