ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
STEPHEN H. PAUL THOMAS F. BEDSOLE
BRENT A. AUBERRY JEFFREY S. DIBLE
BAKER & DANIELS LOCKE REYNOLDS LLP
Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN
INDIANA TAX COURT
AMERICAN UNITED LIFE )
INSURANCE COMPANY, )
v. ) Cause No. 49T10-0210-TA-117
JAMES P. MALEY, JR., ASSESSOR )
OF CENTER TOWNSHIP, )
MARION COUNTY, )
ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF
THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW
February 13, 2004
American United Life Insurance Company (AUL) appeals the Indiana Board of Tax Reviews
(Indiana Board) final determination valuing its real property for the 1995 tax year.
AUL presents multiple issues for this Courts consideration, which the Court restates
Whether the grade of AULs building should have been reduced from an A-1
Whether AULs land should have been valued at $75 per square foot under
the Marion County Land Order (land order); and,
Whether AULs land should have received a negative influence factor.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
AUL owns an entire city block in downtown Indianapolis, on which its 38-floor
office building stands. For the 1995 property tax assessment year, the Center
Township Assessor (Assessor) assigned AULs building an A grade factor and valued its
land at $75 per square foot. AUL appealed its assessment to the
Marion County Board of Review (BOR); while the BOR reduced AULs grade to
A-1, it denied all other requested relief.
AUL then appealed its assessment to the State Board of Tax Commissioners (State
Board), alleging that its grade should be reduced to A-2; its land was
incorrectly valued under the land order; and, a negative influence factor should be
applied to its land. On October 25, 2000, the State Board held
an administrative hearing on the matter; on September 5, 2002, the Indiana Board
issued a final determination in which it denied AULs requested relief.
On October 15, 2002, AUL initiated an original tax appeal. This Court
heard the parties oral arguments on November 3, 2003. Additional facts will
be supplied as necessary.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION
Standard of Review
This Court gives great deference to final determinations of the Indiana Board when
it acts within the scope of its authority. Wittenberg Lutheran Vill. Endowment
Corp. v. Lake County Prop. Tax Assessment Bd. of Appeals, 782 N.E.2d 483,
486 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003), review denied. Consequently, the Court may reverse
a final determination of the Indiana Board only if it 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 statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory jurisdiction,
authority, or limitations;
without observance of procedure required by law; or
unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence.
Ind. Code § 33-3-5-14.8(e)(1)-(5) (West Supp. 2003). The party seeking to overturn
the Indiana Boards final determination bears the burden of proving its invalidity.
See Osolo Township Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane Assocs., L.P., 789 N.E.2d 109,
111 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003).
AUL first asserts that the Indiana Board erred when it failed to reduce
the grade of its building from A-1 to A-2. AUL is correct.
The grading of improvements is an important part of Indianas property tax assessment
system. Under that system, improvements are assigned various grades based on their
materials, design, and workmanship. See Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-10-3
(1996) (providing that grade is used to adjust the total base reproduction cost
in order to account for variations in quality and design); Whitley Prods., Inc.
v. State Bd. of Tax Commrs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1116 (Ind. Tax Ct.
1998), review denied.
For instance, A grade buildings are described as buildings hav[ing] an outstanding architectural
style and design . . . constructed with the finest quality materials and
workmanship. These buildings have a superior quality interior finish with extensive built-in
features, and a deluxe heating system and air conditioning system. Ind. Admin.
Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-10-3(a)(1) (1996). B grade buildings are described as
buildings [that] are architecturally attractive and constructed with good quality materials and workmanship.
These buildings have a high quality interior finish with abundant built-in features,
very good lighting and plumbing fixtures, and a custom heating and air conditioning
system. Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-10-3(a)(2) (1996). While [t]he
grade selected represents a composite judgment of overall quality and design[,] in cases
where the materials and workmanship are not consistent throughout the construction of a
structure it is sometimes necessary to weigh the quality of individual major components
in order to arrive at the proper composite quality rating. Ind. Admin.
Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-10-3(d) (1996).
As the party challenging the final determination of the Indiana Board, AUL was
required to submit probative evidence
demonstrating that its building was either
improperly given an A-1 grade or improperly denied an A-2 grade.
See Sollers Pointe Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Commrs, 790 N.E.2d 185,
191 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003) (footnote added). In so doing, AUL was
required to submit specific evidence tied to the descriptions of the various grade
classifications. See id. (internal quotations, citation omitted). *****
At the administrative hearing, AUL presented the testimony of its property tax consultant,
Ms. Marta Haza (Haza), and its construction engineer consultant, Mr. Thomas Scheele (Scheele).
In addition, AUL presented numerous reports prepared by Haza and Scheele.
First among these documents was an Interior Finish Report (Report). The Report
included photographs and descriptions of each of the floors in AULs building.
Based on these descriptions, a grade factor was assigned to each floor.
Next, AUL averaged the recommended grades of all 38 floors to arrive at
an interior grade factor of 124.741% (B+1) for the entire building. (
Cert. Admin. R. at 166.) On the theory that the exterior of
its building should be graded an A, AUL then calculated the overall composite
grade of A-2 for the entire building (both interior and exterior).
See footnote (
Cert. Admin. R. at 48 (footnote added).)
AUL also submitted a Common Area Interior Finish Comparison Spreadsheet (Spreadsheet) to show
how its building was similar to several allegedly comparable office buildings in downtown
Indianapolis, Indiana. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 324-25.) Specifically, the Spreadsheet
compared the interior finish of AULs building with the interior finishes of these
comparable buildings: Market Tower a 31-story office building; First Indiana Plaza
a 28-story office building; and, One Indiana Square a 36-story office
building. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 324-25.) These comparable buildings each
received an A-2 grade. (See also Cert. Admin. R. at 273, 292,
For instance, the Spreadsheet made a side-by-side comparison of all the buildings main
lobby floor finishes: Polished Amerillo Gold granite (AUL); Honed & Polished Brown
Carnelean granite (Market Tower); Polished granite (First Indiana Plaza); and, Combination Carrara marble
and granite (One Indiana Square). (Cert. Admin. R. at 324-25.) Haza
and Scheele concluded that these finishes were all fairly comparable to one another
in cost, quality, workmanship, and design. (Cert. Admin. R. at 553-55.)
The Spreadsheet also indicated when particular features present in the A-2 graded buildings
were inferior or superior to those of AULs building. For example, the
Spreadsheet stated that the custom fabricated gypsum board boxed ceiling in the Market
Tower building was a more expensive finish than the painted gypsum board ceiling
in the main lobbies of the AUL, First Indiana Plaza, and One Indiana
See footnote (Cert. Admin. R. at 324-25 (footnote added).)
AULs evidence provided a floor-by-floor analysis of the quality of the interior features
of its building. Additionally, it compared the interior finishes of its building
with those of Market Tower, First Indiana Plaza, and One Indiana Square.
Having demonstrated that its buildings interior finishes were indicative of A-2 grade, as
well as showing how its building was similar to other buildings with an
A-2 grade, AUL established its prima facie case that its building should have
been graded an A-2.
Having made its prima facie case, the burden then shifted to the Assessor
to rebut AULs evidence.
See Clark v. State Bd. of Tax Commrs,
694 N.E.2d 1230, 1233 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998) (stating that once a taxpayer
presents a prima facie case, it must be rebutted with substantial evidence).
At the administrative hearing, the Assessor first questioned Scheele and Haza. In
none of these exchanges, however, did the Assessor offer evidence rebutting their conclusions
as contained in the Report and Spreadsheet. Rather, he asked seemingly irrelevant
questions such as [y]ou never worked for [the builders] when they built the
[AUL] building, right? and did you take into consideration the rental rates of
the AUL building? (Cert. Admin. R. at 561, 564.)
The Assessor also introduced a witness, Mr. Ernest Clark (Clark) of the Center
Township Assessors Office, who testified that the AUL building was probably an A
grade building because
[the building is] not a square building[.] And anytime you start adding
angles to a building, you increase the cost . . . of the
building itself[.] [P]lus[,] the design is inherently more expensive because if you
dont have square corners, you use more materials.
[The building has] a lot of  full-length windows . . . especially
the sloping windows on the wings, the top slope . . . [and
when] youre using varying types of windows,  youve got less standardization.
Its going to . . . cost more[.]
[The full-length] windows at least appear to be larger than what I consider
normal in office buildings. As you can see in the picture here,
the subject building, behind it is another office building and the windows look
(Cert. Admin. R. 576-79 (footnote added).) II. LAND VALUE
The Assessor also produced another witness from the Center Township Assessors office, Mr.
Frank Corsaro (Corsaro). Corsaro inquired (generally) why AUL chose the comparable buildings
it did, as opposed to others. (
See Cert. Admin. R. at 585-87.)
Corsaro also explained that at the time the AUL building was built
in 1982, he toured the building and thought it was a beautiful building
that kind of made downtown. (Cert. Admin. R. at 593.)
The Assessors evidence simply fails to impeach or rebut AULs evidence. First,
the Assessor did not demonstrate the relevancy of questions such as [y]ou never
worked for [the builders] when they built the [AUL] building, right? and did
you take into consideration the rental rates of the AUL building? Consequently,
the irrelevant questions do not rebut AULs composite grade calculation. See Standard
Plastic Corp. v. Dept of Local Govt Fin., 773 N.E.2d 379, 384 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 2002) (stating that relevant evidence is such evidence a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion). Second, Clarks testimony that
the exterior architectural features of the AUL building support an A grade does
not rebut Haza and Scheeles testimony: they admitted the grade for the
exterior of the building should be an A grade. (See Cert. Admin.
R. at 544.) Furthermore, Cosaros statements that the AUL building was beautiful
and made downtown are merely conclusions and do not qualify as probative evidence.
See Lacy Diversified Indus., Ltd. v. Dept of Local Govt Fin., 799
N.E.2d 1215, 1221(Ind. Tax Ct. 2003) (finding that statements such as a building
is a grand old building are nothing more than conclusions and therefore, not
The Assessor failed to rebut AULs prima facie case. The Court finds
that AUL is entitled to an A-2 grade factor and therefore REVERSES the
Indiana Boards final determination.
Next, AUL contends that its land was improperly valued at $75 per square
foot. More specifically, AUL asserts that under the land order, a portion
of its land should be valued at $20 per square foot. Again,
AUL is correct.
In 1995, land values were determined through the application of land orders.
Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, rr. 2.2-4-2, -6 (1996). To develop the
land orders, each county had a land valuation commission that collected and analyzed
sales data on non-agricultural land (i.e., residential, commercial, and industrial) within the county.
Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-4-2 (1996). See also Ind.
Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-4-5 (1996). On the basis of that
data, the valuation commission recommended a range of values for property in certain
areas. Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-4-2(b) (1996); see also Ind.
Code § 6-1.1-4-13.6(a) (West 1989) (amended 1997). These values were submitted to
the State Board for modification or acceptance and then compiled in a county
land valuation order. Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-4-3 (1996); see
also Ind. Code § 6.1.1-4-13.6(f)-(h) (West 1989) (amended 1997).
The land values contained within a land order are typically expressed in ranges
of base rates that are applied to various geographic areas, subdivisions, or neighborhoods
based on distinguishing characteristics or boundaries. Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r.
2.2-4-4(c) (1996). The land order at issue in this case established AULs
property boundaries within Square 34, bounded by New York Street on the north,
Illinois Street on the east, Ohio Street on the south, and Capitol Avenue
on the west. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 400.) With respect
to Square 34, the land order summary provides:
$70-$100 per square foot for the southern portion of the property bounded by
Ohio Street from Illinois Street to Capitol Avenue;
$10-$20 per square foot for the northern portion of the property bounded by
New York Street from Illinois Street to Capital Avenue; and,
$70-$100 per square foot for a northwest to southeast diagonal portion of the
property, which at one time was bisected by Indiana Avenue from Ohio Street
to New York Street (Indiana Avenue was vacated in 1979).
(See Cert. Admin. R. at 402-04.) III. NEGATIVE INFLUENCE FACTOR
Under the plain meaning of the land order, AULs land was to be
valued at $70-$100 per square foot, except for the triangular portion of Square
34 bounded by New York Street to the north and Illinois Street to
the east, its hypotenuse being Indiana Avenue. (See Cert. Admin. R. at
400.) Land in that triangle is to be valued at $10-$20 per
square foot. See The Precedent v. State Bd. of Tax Commrs, 659
N.E.2d 701, 704 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995) (stating that [i]n construing a land
order, the first and foremost rule of construction is to ascertain and give
effect to the land commissions intent, and the most reliable guide to that
intent is the language of the land order itself).
Nevertheless, the Assessor interpreted the land order as authorizing the
use of one base rate only: the $70-$100 per square foot rate.
Indeed, the Assessor asserts that there is nothing in [the land order]
that indicates that [Assessors are] supposed to apply the ten to twenty dollar
range to this triangle and the seventy to a hundred [dollar range] to
this triangle. (Oral Argument Tr. at 105.) Additionally, the Assessor contends
that because the land order provides for a $70 - $100 per square
foot base rate along what was formerly Indiana Avenue, the $70 - $100
per square foot is the appropriate value anywhere from the geometric center of
Square 34 to the southeast corner or the northwest corner of the city
block. (Respt Br. at 24.) Finally, the Assessor asserts that the
$70 - $100 per square foot base rate along Ohio Street applies to
land anywhere along Ohio Street between Illinois Street and Capitol Avenue. (Respt
Br. at 24.)
The Assessors interpretation of the land order effectively ignores the $10-$20 base rate
range assigned to the triangle of land at the northeastern corner of Square
34. In reading a land order, however, all language used . .
. is presumed to have meaning. The Precedent, 659 N.E.2d at 705
(citations omitted). Furthermore, this Court will read the [land order] as a
whole, and not sections or parts of it piecemeal. Roehl Transp., Inc.
v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 653 N.E.2d 539, 542 (Ind. Tax Ct.
1995) (citation omitted).
See footnote Consequently, under the plain meaning of the
order, the Assessor must apply both the $70-$100 per square foot base rate
range and the $10-$20 per square foot base range, as defined, in assessing
AULs land. Therefore, the Court REVERSES the Indiana Boards final determination valuing
AULs land at $75 per square foot.
Finally, AUL asserts that it is entitled to a negative influence factor of
25% to its parcel. AUL is incorrect.
An influence factor refers to a condition peculiar to the acreage tract that
dictates an adjustment to the extended value to account for variations from the
Quality Farm and Fleet, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Commrs,
747 N.E.2d 88, 91 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (quoting Ind. Admin. Code tit.
50, r. 2.2-4-17(c)(8) (1996)). Such variations are expressed as a percentage that
represents the composite effect of the factor that influences the value. 50
IAC 2.2-4-17(c)(8). For instance, an influence factor for misimprovement is used when
the parcel does not have the same use as surrounding parcels. See
Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-4-10(a)(9)(E) (1996).
AUL, seeking a misimprovement influence factor, was required to submit probative evidence demonstrating
that 1) its parcel did not have the same use as surrounding parcels
and 2) the inconsistent use negatively impacted the subject parcels value. See
Quality Farm and Fleet, 747 N.E.2d at 92; see also Ind. Admin. Code
tit. 50, r. 2.2-4-10(a)(9)(E) (1996). To support its claim, AUL asserts that
its land suffers from the peculiar attribute of being underutilized because its buildings
footprint occupies only 49% of its parcels square footage. (Petr Br. at
59.) In conjunction with this assertion, AUL submitted a Land to
Building Analysis demonstrating that six other buildings located in downtown Indianapolis had footprints
occupying 80%-99% of their parcels total square footage. (See Cert. Admin. R.
at 440.) Such evidence, however, fails to demonstrate that AULs choice to
build its building on a partial portion of its parcel reflects a different
use from other property owners who chose to occupy their entire parcel space
with a building.
arguendo that AULs footprint/total square footage ratio constitutes a different use
than surrounding parcels, AUL failed to quantify how its land suffered a loss
in value due to that differing use. Rather, AUL asserted it was
entitled to a 25% negative influence factor because an appraisal indicated that its
property had a market value of $35 per square foot. (See Petr
Br. at 59. See also Cert. Admin. R. at 328-29.) More
specifically, AUL claims that if the land order is correctly applied utilizing both
base rates (as determined supra), the difference between the resulting base rate average
See footnote per square foot and the appraisals value of $35 per square
foot illustrates a difference in value of approximately 25%. (
See Petr Br.
Influence factors may be quantified through the use of market data. See
Phelps Dodge v. State Bd. of Tax Commrs, 705 N.E.2d 1099, 1106 n.
14 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999), review denied.
See footnote Nevertheless, AULs appraisal data simply
does not demonstrate how the difference in values it proposes resulted specifically from
the land being under-improved.
See Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Bd. of
Tax Commrs, 747 N.E.2d 645, 653 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (finding that because
taxpayer failed to provide evidence linking its lands inconsistent use to an actual
loss in value, it was not entitled to a negative influence factor), review
denied. Thus, the Court agrees with the Indiana Boards finding that AUL
provided no market data to quantify its claim that the alleged deficiencies of
the parcel result[ed] in [a] loss of value. (Cert. Admin. R. at
71.) Therefore, the Court AFFIRMS the Indiana Boards final determination denying AULs
request for a negative influence factor.
For the reasons stated above, the Court REVERSES and REMANDS the final determination
of the Indiana Board with respect to Issues I and II. The
Court AFFIRMS the Indiana Boards final determination with respect to Issue III.
Upon remand, the Indiana Board is ordered to instruct the local assessing officials
to assign AULs building a grade of A-2 and to assess AULs land
as prescribed in the land order and consistent with this opinion.
On December 31, 2001, the legislature abolished the State Board of
Tax Commissioners (State Board). 2001 Ind. Acts 198 § 119(b)(2). Effective
January 1, 2002, the legislature created the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana
Board) as successor to the State Board.
Ind. Code §§ 6-1.5-1-3; 6-1.5-4-1;
2001 Ind. Acts 198 § 95. Thus, when the final determination was
issued on AULs appeal in September 2002, it was issued by the Indiana
The grades represent multipliers that are applied to the subject improvements base
Whitley Prods., Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Commrs, 704
N.E.2d 1113, 1116 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998), review denied. A grade improvements
receive a multiplier of 160%; the multiplier for B grade improvements is 120%.
See Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-10-3(b)(1)-(2) (1996). Furthermore, [b]ecause
structures sometimes fall between major classifications . . . a method of interpolation
is built into the system. Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-10-3(c)
Plus or minus two (+/- 2) indicates that the grade falls halfway between
the assigned grade classification and the grade immediately above or below it.
Plus or minus one (+/- 1) indicates that the grade falls slightly above
or below the assigned grade classification, or at a point approximately twenty-five percent
(25%) of the interval between the assigned grade classification and the grade immediately
above or below it.
Id. Thus, an A-1 and an A-2 carry multipliers of 150% and
For example, the Report included photographs of the interior of the 2nd
floor and the following description:
Tenant office space (43% of entire floor): Standard office finish; i.e[.], suspended
acoustical ceiling; inset fluorescent lights; painted drywall walls; 2 vinyl baseboard; metal trim
around wood doors (no fire rating). The exceptions are as follows: 2x2
carpet tile flooring; a floor-to-ceiling glass perimeter wall separates the tenant space from
the lobby area; and, a few textured glass panels pose as demising walls
within the tenant space.
(Cert. Admin. R. at 193.) As a result, the Report indicated that
an appropriate grade for the 2nd floor should be an A-1.
Footnote: AUL assumed that the interior finish represented 60%[,] and the exterior 
of the building represented 40%[,] of the total base square foot rate of
the building. (
See Cert. Admin. R. at 48.) To arrive at
those percentages, AUL added the cost of the interior components, as contained in
the Indiana Administrative Code, and compared that total to the base square foot
rate. See Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-11-6, Schedule C (1996).
(See also Cert. Admin. R. at 48.) The interior base rate
was $23.30 per square foot; the base square foot rate was $38.23 per
square foot. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 163-64.) AUL multiplied the
weighted interior finish grade factor of 124.741% by 60%, and the exterior grade
factor of 160% by 40% to arrive at an overall composite grade factor
of 140%, or A-2. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 166.)
To support this contention, Scheele explained that
[the painted gypsum board ceiling] in the AUL building, its basically in the
same plane, so its a flat ceiling, more or less. In a
custom fabricated gyp[sum] board box ceiling you start getting into different planes of
horizontal and vertical surfaces, so its more difficult to build, its more expensive,
so overall its a costlier ceiling.
(Cert. Admin. R. at 554.)
Footnote: The Court finds this conclusion unpersuasive; indeed, in photographs objects farther away
often appear smaller than objects closer in view.
Footnote: The Court notes that in its final determination, the Indiana Board concluded
that AULs evidence failed to establish that it was entitled to a grade
reduction because the Petitioners description [of its building] does nothing to explain how
and to what extent the subject deviates from the model, why those deviations
deserve an adjustment, and why a subjective (as opposed to objective) adjustment is
appropriate. (Cert. Admin. R. at 52.) The Indiana Board misinterpreted AULs
claim: AUL did
not assert that its building was entitled to a
grade reduction to account for its deviations from the model used to assess
it. See Quality Farm and Fleet, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax
Commrs, 747 N.E.2d 88, 94 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (finding that in some
circumstances, an improvements deviation from the model used to assess it may be
accounted for via a grade adjustment).
Land orders are administrative rules; therefore, they are subject to the same
rules of construction as statutes.
See The Precedent v. State Bd. of
Tax Commrs, 659 N.E.2d 701, 704 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995).
The Indiana Boards final determination denied AULs challenge to the land order
values for two reasons: 1) taxpayers are unable to challenge values contained in
a land order and 2) assuming
arguendo that taxpayers can challenge the values
in land orders, AULs evidence failed to demonstrate that the assigned value in
the land order was incorrect. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 55-68.)
However, since the Court finds that the error in valuing AULs property resulted
from the Assessors misinterpretation of the land order, it need not address the
Indiana Boards conclusions.
Indeed, the Indiana Board concluded as much when it determined that [AUL]
failed to demonstrate that the use of its parcel differs from the use
of surrounding properties. (Cert. Admin. R. at 71.) Furthermore, it seems
readily apparent to the Court that AULs land does not suffer from a
peculiar attribute inhibiting it from developing the property based on AULs own evidence:
it admits that its building is zoned CBD-1 explaining, [t]his zoning allows
an owner to build upon and cover the entire parcel with its structure.
(Petr Br. at 58.) Additionally, AUL admits that the underutilized space
represents an area large enough to support the footprints of four of the
above listed comparable high-rise buildings! (Petr Br. at 58.) Thus, had
AUL chosen to build a building that would occupy the entire parcel space,
it could have done so.
Footnote: AUL added the $20 per square foot base rate and the currently
assessed base rate of $75 per square foot to arrive at an average
base rate of $47.50. (
See Petr Br. at 59.)
[B]ecause the regulations describing Land Orders and influence factors specifically refer to
market concepts . . . the use of market concepts in the quantification
of influence factors is a permissible means of quantifying influence factors under the
True Tax Value system [of property tax assessment used in Indiana].
Dodge v. State Bd. of Tax Commrs, 705 N.E.2d 1099, 1106 n.14 (Ind.
Tax Ct. 1999), review denied.