ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER:    ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
DAVID L. PIPPEN    STEVE CARTER    
ATTORNEY AT LAW     ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
Indianapolis, IN    Indianapolis, IN
    
     LINDA I. VILLEGAS
    DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Indianapolis, IN
_____________________________________________________________________
     IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT

MARLETTE HOMES, INC.,          )
                                 )
    Petitioner,                  )
                                 )
    v.                           )   Cause No. 49T10-0101-TA-5
                                 )
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL              )

The other means of accounting for an improvement’s deviation from the model used to develop the cost schedule is via an adjustment to the grade of the improvement. This type of adjustment requires the assessor’s subjective judgment. Where possible, this type of an adjustment should be avoided. However, because the component (base rate adjustment) schedules are not comprehensive, this type of adjustment may be necessary.

Id. (internal citations, quotations, and footnotes omitted).
Marlette claims that the State Board erred in assigning a “D” grade to its improvement. Specifically, Marlette alleges that because its building lacks certain features present in the GCI model, its grade should be reduced to an “E.” To support its claim, Marlette presented an “Assessment Review and Analysis” (Analysis). See footnote In the Analysis, Marlette described the improvement as a “light pre-engineered structure[], constructed of rigid steel framing, with purlins and girders with a 14 gauge, along with the standard X bracing. Walls are made up of 28 gauge metal siding with exposed insulation on the interior.” (Stip. R. at 135.)

Marlette then explained that, while the improvement would normally be priced under the General Commercial Kit (GCK) ScheduleSee footnote , “it was the policy of the [BOR] at that time . . . that very few if any buildings were priced from the GCK schedule.” (Stip. R. at 188.) Rather, the BOR “just appl[ied] a lower grade . . . as opposed to using the GCK Schedule.” See footnote (Stip. R. at 188 (footnote added).) Consequently, Marlette presented a calculation to justify its request for an “E” grade: first, it calculated the value of the improvement utilizing the General Commercial Kit (GCK) Schedule, establishing an alternate reproduction cost for the improvement. (Stip. R. at 135.) In comparing that alternate reproduction cost with that of the base reproduction cost under the GCI pricing schedule, Marlette calculated a 60% difference. (Stip. R. at 135.) Marlette then asserted that if the current grade were reduced to an “E,” the values would be equalized with those as calculated under the GCK Schedule.
The State Board denied Marlette’s claim, finding that “the difference between pricing schedules does not constitute probative evidence that the grade of the subject building is incorrect.” (Stip. R. at 68.) In doing so, the State Board erred. Indeed, Marlette’s evidence demonstrated that it was entitled to GCK pricingSee footnote ; thus, because the BOR admitted that it was its practice to reduce grades rather than utilize GCK pricing ( see Stip. R. at 189), Marlette has shown it was entitled to a grade reduction to “E” on its improvement. In light of the BOR’s own admission, the State Board improperly ignored Marlette’s calculation demonstrating that an “E” grade would be an equivalent value to the GCK value for its improvement.
Marlette established a prima facie case that it was entitled to GCK pricing and, thus, a grade of “E.” The State Board, however, failed to rebut Marlette’s evidence and support its findings with substantial evidence. See Hamstra Builders, 783 N.E.2d at 390 (stating that 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). Accordingly, the State Board’s final determination cannot stand.