ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER:
DAVID L. PIPPEN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Indianapolis, IN

ATTORNEYS FOR THE RESPONDENT:
STEVE CARTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
Indianapolis, IN

LAUREANNE L. NORDSTROM
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indianapolis, IN


_____________________________________________________________________
     IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT _____________________________________________________________________

COACHMEN INDUSTRIES, INC.,                                                )
                                                                               )
    Petitioner,                                                                )
                                                                               )
    v.                                                                         )   Cause No. 49T10-0005-TA-70
                                                                               )
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL                                                            )
GOVERNMENT FINANCE, See footnote         )
                )
    Respondent.            )    
                                    

ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION
OF THE STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS

                                 _____

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
July 17, 2003

FISHER, J.
Coachmen Industries, Inc. (Coachmen) appeals the final determination of the State Board of Tax Commissioners (State Board) valuing its real property for the 1995 tax year. The only issue for the Court to decide is whether the State Board erred when it used the General Commercial Industrial (GCI) pricing schedule to assess Coachmen’s improvement. See footnote For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the State Board’s final determination.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Coachmen owns a commercial improvement in Adams County, Indiana. For the 1995 general reassessment, Coachmen’s improvement was assessed at $1,054,500 pursuant to the GCI pricing schedule contained within Indiana’s assessment rules.See footnote Coachmen appealed its assessment to the Washington Township Board of Review (BOR), arguing that because its improvement was a “kit building,” the General Commercial Kit (GCK) pricing scheduleSee footnote should have been used to assess it as opposed to the GCI pricing schedule. The BOR denied Coachmen’s appeal. Coachmen appealed the BOR’s denial to the State Board, which held a hearing on November 23, 1999. On March 30, 2000, the State Board issued a final determination on Coachmen’s appeal, upholding the BOR’s determination.
On May 15, 2000, Coachmen initiated this original tax appeal. On September 29, 2000, the parties stipulated to the record. On March 19, 2001, the parties presented oral arguments. Additional facts will be supplied as needed.
ANALYSIS AND OPINION
Standard of Review

This Court gives great deference to the final determinations of the State Board when it acts within the scope of its authority. Thousand Trails, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 757 N.E.2d 1072, 1075 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001). This Court will reverse a final determination of the State Board only when its findings are unsupported by substantial evidence, arbitrary, capricious, constitute an abuse of discretion, or exceed statutory authority. Id.
Furthermore, a taxpayer who appeals to this Court from a State Board final determination bears the burden of showing that the final determination is invalid. Id. The taxpayer must present a prima facie case by submitting probative evidence, i.e., evidence sufficient to establish a given fact that, if not contradicted, will remain sufficient. Id. Once the taxpayer presents a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the State Board to rebut the taxpayer’s evidence and support its findings with substantial evidence. Id.
Discussion

The sole issue is whether the State Board erred when it used the GCI pricing schedule to assess Coachmen’s improvement. Coachmen contends that because its improvement is a “kit building,” it should have been assessed using the GCK pricing schedule. Coachmen is incorrect.
Kit building components are fabricated from lightweight, inexpensive materials at central manufacturing facilities then shipped to a location for fast and efficient assembly. Hamstra Builders, Inc. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 783 N.E.2d 387, 390 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003). “[T]he key elements used to identify kit buildings are simply [the] building’s type of interior column and roof beam support[,which] may include cold form cee channel supports, tapered columns, H-columns, and steel pole (or post) columns.” Id. at 390–91 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). As a result, it should not be difficult for taxpayers to identify those characteristics in an improvement that qualify it as a kit building. Id. at 391. Indeed, a taxpayer makes a prima facie case that its improvement is a kit building when it shows that its improvement’s column and roof beam support meet the criteria for a kit building. Id. Such an improvement is to be assessed using the GCK pricing schedule. See Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-11-6 (Sched A.4) (1996).
Coachmen argues that its improvement is a kit building because it “features concrete piers which house the metal columns which support most of the structure’s weight [and because the] metal columns, purlins, girts, and beams are common to all pre-engineered buildings and are spaced and sized according to the width of the building’s span[.]” (Pet’r Post Hr’g Br. at 3 (citing Exs. C at 2; A at 19).) Coachmen’s claim is merely conclusory because it provides no information that allows this Court to evaluate the basis of the claim; it therefore is not probative evidence. See footnote See Walker Mfg. Co. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 772 N.E.2d 1, 7 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2002) (holding that conclusory statements do not constitute probative evidence). Because Coachmen has not submitted any evidence that would support its claim, it has failed to present a prima facie case. Therefore, the Court AFFIRMS the State Board’s final determination. See footnote
CONCLUSION

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the State Board’s final determination.


Footnote: The State Board of Tax Commissioners (State Board) was originally the Respondent in this appeal. However, the Legislature abolished the State Board as of December 31, 2001. 2001 Ind. Acts 198 § 119(b)(2). Effective January 1, 2002, the Legislature created the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) and the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board). Ind. Code §§ 6-1.1-30-1.1; 6-1.5-1-3 (West Supp. 2001); 2001 Ind. Acts 198 §§ 66, 95. Pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.5-5-8, the DLGF is substituted for the State Board in appeals from final determinations of the State Board that were issued before January 1, 2002. Ind. Code § 6-1.5-5-8 (West Supp. 2001) (eff. 2002); 2001 Ind. Acts 198 § 95. Nevertheless, the law in effect prior to January 1, 2002 applies to these appeals. I.C. § 6-1.5-5-8. See also 2001 Ind. Acts 198 § 117. Although the DLGF has been substituted as the Respondent, the Court will still reference the State Board throughout this opinion.

Footnote: In addition, Coachmen raises various state and federal constitutional claims that this Court has declined to reach in previous cases. See, e.g., Barth, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 756 N.E.2d 1124, 1127 n.1 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001). Because Coachmen’s claims and supporting arguments are identical to those previously rejected by the Court, the Court will not address them.

Footnote: See Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-11-6 (Sched. A.2) (1996).

Footnote: See Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-11-6 (Sched. A.4) (1996).

Footnote: Coachmen also claims that its improvement is a kit building because it has exterior walls of “26 gauge metal” and a roof of “24 metal gauge [sic]”. (Pet’r Post Hr’g Br. at 3.) However, the mere fact that an improvement has metal exterior walls and roofing does not necessarily mean that the improvement is a kit building. See Barker v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 712 N.E.2d 563, 567 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999).

Footnote: Coachmen also argues that the State Board erred by applying a 40-year physical depreciation table to its improvement. However, this claim is based on the assumption that the improvement is a kit building. Because Coachmen failed to submit probative evidence showing that its improvement is a kit building, its claim as to the physical depreciation table is rendered moot.