ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER:    ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
DAVID L. PIPPEN    STEVE CARTER
Attorney at Law    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
Indianapolis, IN     Indianapolis, IN

     JOEL SCHIFF
    DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Indianapolis, IN
_____________________________________________________________________

    IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT _____________________________________________________________________

QUALITY FARM AND FLEET, INC.,                                                          )
                                                                                            )
    Petitioner,                                                                             )
                                                                                            )
    v.                                                                                      )   Cause No. 49T10-9803-TA-17
                                                                                            )
STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS,                                                           )
                                                                                            )
    Respondent.                                                                             )    

III. Whether the State Board improperly refused to apply the General Commercial Kit (GCK) pricing schedule to two areas of Fleet’s improvements;

IV. Whether the State Board’s application of a D grade to the Main Building was invalid; and

V. Whether the State Board’s decision to award no obsolescence adjustment to the Main Building was erroneous. See footnote

(Joint Ex. 2 at 3.) At the administrative hearing, Miller testified that the Main Building differed from the General Retail model, see Ind. Admin. Code tit. 2.2-11-1(34) (1996), with respect to its “interior finish,” “exterior windows,” and “exterior tracking.” (Joint Ex. 3.) This was the extent of his testimony before the State Board on the grade issue. Although Fleet presented additional evidence at trial, the Court may not consider evidence that was not presented at the administrative hearing. Whitley Prods., Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998), review denied; State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. Gatling Gun Club, Inc., 420 N.E.2d 1324, 1328 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981).
    Fleet wants to account for its building’s alleged deviations from the General Retail model by lowering the Main Building’s grade from a D to a D - 1, which would lower the building’s base value by ten percent. Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-11-7 (1996) (Schedule F). Under some circumstances, an improvement’s deviation from the model used to assess it may be accounted for via a grade adjustment. Whitley Prods., 704 N.E.2d at 1117. Cf. Clark v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 742 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (“Use of objective adjustments [for grade] is preferable and must be done where the base rate adjustment and/or unit-in-place tables permit the deviations’ values to be reasonably calculated.”). However, Fleet’s testimony and exhibits do not explain how or to what extent the Main Building’s features deviate from the model, why the alleged deviations justify a ten percent downward adjustment in the building’s base value or why a subjective (as opposed to objective) adjustment is appropriate.
    This evidence is insufficient to establish a prima facie case as to grade. The Review is not helpful. Its statements as to the Main Building’s interior finish and level of attractiveness are conclusory and therefore not probative as to grade. CDI, 725 N.E.2d at 1019. Miller’s testimony before Schultz at the administrative hearing was likewise conclusory. His three examples of deviations do not tend to show whether a D - 1 grade is more appropriate than a D grade. The only evidence that may be considered probative as to grade is the Review’s statement that the Main Building lacked exterior windows. However, even this fact works against Fleet. The GCM General Retail model lists the following for “Openings”: “1% 1 ¾ [inch] hollow metal service doors.” Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-11-1(34). The model mentions nothing about windows; therefore, a lack of windows in the Main Building actually comports with the model used to assess it.

(Joint Ex. 2 at 3.) Miller’s testimony before the State Board is virtually identical to this statement. (Joint Ex. 3.) Fleet highlights these two purported causes of obsolescence, i.e., the “add-on construction and [] flat roof design,” in its brief to the Court. (Pet’r Br. at 11.) Fleet argues that that these features would not be rebuilt today. Id. (citing Trial Tr. at 19, 34 & 35.)
    Fleet does not explain how either the add-on construction or a flat roof design qualifies as a cause of obsolescence in the present case. While Schultz did testify that builders constructing a new improvement would not typically “immediately add on to it,” he stated that “some [structures are added on to] more effectively than others.” (Trial Tr. at 19.) Thus, add-on construction does not automatically equate with a structure’s loss in value. Likewise, the presence of a flat roof, whether or not it would be reproduced in a building today, does not automatically qualify as a cause of obsolescence. Conclusory statements such as Fleet’s lack probative value. CDI, 725 N.E.2d at 1019. Fleet identified no other purported causes of obsolescence. Fleet has failed to make a prima facie case that its improvements suffer from either functional or economic obsolescence.