08/16/2017 VAB - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Agent reviewed specific questions posed by the PA relating to her comparables, MSRP use/non-use, age of assets in comparables and comparison of percentages used in .her tables and the PA's tables. The Agent stated that the PA is overvaluing the assets. An age -based market study must have replacement cost new (RCN), used price and age. The Agent stated that the PA's market study has no adjustment for condition, no age and no RCN to establish a percent good factor. The PA has no documentation to support any adjustments. She discussed the dealer contacts were made to sales people, not the President to the company. She questioned why the PA did not ask the dealers if they agreed with any of the data (percentages) presented by the Agent. She agreed with the PA that internet data is the least reliable but that must be done. The Agent stated that the dealer data shows the behavior in the market and depreciation was arrived at through the dealer information. She stated that.the PA's use of taxpayer filing data is not a market check. The Agent's values are more conservative. The Agent's Attorney stated that manufacturers warranties are intangibles. The Agent stated that the PA used DOR tables to establish data points, which only measures physical depreciation. The PA stated that it covers all forms of depreciation. The Agent believes it does not. Findings of Fact The first issue to determine is whether the PA established a presumption of correctness. (Rule 12D- 9.024(7) F.A.C.) Both parties are responsible for presenting relevant and credible evidence to support their valuations. After review, the Special Magistrate must consider the weight of the evidence to a standard of proof under F.S. 194.301 and Rule 12D -9.025(3)(b). F.A.C., which is "preponderance of the evidence". All of the evidence was admitted and considered. The PA believes they have complied with all of the standards and statutes to establish the presumption of correctness. The Agent believes that the method used to develop their requested values represents market by showing a willing buyer/willing seller and application of market depreciation. Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the PA's evidence. Petitioner's evidence did not prove by a preponderance that PA's valuation does not represent just value or is arbitrarily based on appraisal practices that are different from the appraisal practices generally applied by the PA to comparable property in JINNiNIMCounty. Conclusions of Law The PA considered ail of the factors, approaches to value and appraisal methodology to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the assessments represent just value. The data presented by the Agent did not support their request for additional obsolescence or arbitrarily based. The Agent discussed 3 points (RCN, used price & age) needed to develop an age -based market study. The comparables used are a very small sample. The internet comparables relate to Maytag, Whirlpool and Kenmore. The dealer contacts are general and not based on a particular manufacturer. Only one dealer breaks down the life expectancy for different manufacturers. Nowhere in the Agent's evidence is a description of the different manufacturers at the locations. There is only one page showing pricing on Whirlpool single load products from March 2015. If the 3 points discussed above are important, there lacks sufficient market data used to develop their tables. The Agent did not provide a clear explanation of how their tables were applied to the line items. Because of the issues discussed in the paragraph above, the Petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of correctness established at the hearing by the PA. The PA. established a presumption of correctness for the assessment at the hearing. [Section 194.301, F.S.; Rule 12D-9.027, F.A.C.] The petitions are denied and the assessments stand. -75-