ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER:
TIMOTHY J. VRANA
SHARPNACK BIGLEY LLP
Columbus, IN
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS:
STEVE CARTER
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
Indianapolis, IN

TED HOLADAY
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indianapolis, IN


_____________________________________________________________________
IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
_____________________________________________________________________

JAMES L. & BARBARA A. PUCKETT,                                        )
                                                                               )
    Petitioners,                                                               )
                                                                               )
    v.                                                                         )   Cause No. 49T10-9910-TA-206
                                                                               )
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL                                                            )
GOVERNMENT FINANCE, See footnote             )
                )
    Respondent.            )    
                                    

ON APPEAL FROM TWO FINAL DETERMINATIONS
OF THE STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS

                                 _____
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
July 22, 2003

FISHER, J.
James L. and Barbara A. Puckett appeal the final determinations of the State Board of Tax Commissioners (State Board) valuing their real property for the 1997 assessment year. The issue for the Court to decide is whether the State Board erred when it refused to value the Pucketts’ improvements using the General Commercial Kit (GCK) pricing schedule. For the following reasons, the Court AFFIRMS the State Board’s final determinations.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Pucketts own commercial improvements in Columbus Township, Bartholomew County, Indiana, which they use as “mini-warehouses.” (Stip. R. at 68.) The Pucketts appealed the valuation of these improvements for the 1997 assessment year to the Bartholomew County Board of Review (BOR), which upheld their assessment. The Pucketts subsequently appealed the BOR’s final determination to the State Board, arguing that because their improvements are pole buildings, they should have been valued using the GCK pricing schedule. On September 15, 1999, the State Board issued two final determinations, upholding the Pucketts’ assessment. See footnote (Stip. R. at 2, 87.)
On October 20, 1999, the Pucketts initiated an original tax appeal. The Court held a trial on September 27, 2000, at which the parties stipulated to the record. On March 9, 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 was 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 in this case is whether the State Board erred when it refused to value the Pucketts’ improvements using the GCK pricing schedule. See footnote The GCK pricing schedule “is utilized for valuing preengineered and predesigned pole buildings which are used for commercial and industrial purposes.” Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 2.2-10-6.1(a)(1)(D) (1996). As a threshold matter, taxpayers like the Pucketts who seek the application of the GCK pricing schedule must submit probative evidence showing that the subject improvement is a preengineered and predesigned pole building. See Thousand Trails, 757 N.E.2d at 1075.
The Pucketts did not submit any evidence showing that their improvements were preengineered and predesigned pole buildings. Rather, they merely argue that because their improvements are constructed from materials normally used in “kit buildings,” See footnote the State Board should have inferred that their improvements were preengineered and predesigned pole buildings. ( See Pet’r Post Tr. Br. at 4–5.) However, the mere fact that an improvement is built of materials commonly used in kit buildings does not necessarily mean that the improvement is a preengineered and predesigned pole building. See Barker v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 712 N.E.2d 563, 567 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999) (noting that although kit buildings have metal walls, not all metal-walled improvements are kit buildings). Consequently, the Pucketts have not presented probative evidence sufficient to establish a prima face case. See footnote
CONCLUSION

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


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, this Court will still reference the State Board throughout this opinion.

Footnote: Other than a procedural history, the State Board’s final determinations do not include any details of the Pucketts’ assessment.

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

Footnote: “Generally, kit buildings are made of light[-]weight and inexpensive materials and are fabricated at central manufacturing facilities and shipped to the construction site ready 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) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Footnote: The Pucketts also argue that the classification of their improvements as “special purpose design” is arbitrary and capricious because the phrase “special purpose design” is undefined. The Court disagrees. The State Board incorporates standard appraisal terms into its rules. See, e.g., Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, rr. 2.2-1-1 et seq.; 2.2-16-1 et seq. (1996). “Special purpose design” is a standard appraisal term and refers to “structures with unique designs, special construction materials, or layouts that restrict their utility to the use for which they were originally built.” Appraisal Inst., The Appraisal of Real Estate 25 (12th ed. 2001).
Finally, the Pucketts argue that the “D” grade assigned to their improvements was arbitrary and capricious. However, the record indicates that the Pucketts expressly waived the issue of grade at their administrative hearing. (Stip. R. at 85, 107.) Thus, the Court will not address the issue of grade. See Hoogenboom-Nofziger v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 715 N.E.2d 1018, 1022 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 1999) (holding that when a taxpayer waives an issue at the administrative level, the Court will not consider it for the first time on appeal).