NOS PROPERT TA APPEA BOARD PTABSN101x001c - PDF document

1 ,//,NO,S PROPERT< TA; APPEA/ BOARD PTAB/
,//,NO,S PROPERT< TA; APPEA/ BOARD PTAB/SN/10-1 APPE//ANT: So\e OOoOade DOC.ET NO.: 13-3556.001-R-1 PARCE/ NO.: 30-2-20-002-0000 Review is warranted. TKe corrTOTA/: TKe appeOOant timeO\ fiOed tKe appeaO from a decision of tKe CooN Count\ Board of Review pursuant to section 16-15 of tKe Propert\ Ta[ Code 35 ,/CS 200/16-160 cKaOOenJinJ tKe TKe subMect propert\ consists of a 5-\ear-oOd 1.5-stor\ dweOOinJ of frame and masonr\ construction witK 1134 square feet of OivinJ area. TKe proper $3. per square foot of OivinJ area. TKe subMect s assessment refOects a marNet vaOue of $540 or $4.32 per square foot of OivinJ area Oand incOuded wKen usinJ tKe 2013 OeveO of assessments for cOass 2 propert\ of 10% under tKe CooN Count\ ReaO Propert\ Assessment COassification ,n support of its contention of tKe correct assessment tKe board of review submitted information on four suJJested equit\ compaboard of review submitted a brief arJuinJ tKat tKe appeOOant faiOed to provide sufficien

2 t evidence e was an arm’s OenJtK trans
t evidence e was an arm’s OenJtK transaAt KearinJ appeOOant’s attorne\ arJued tKat tKe board of review’s brief sKouOd be stricNen because it is overO\ broad. ,n addition appeOOant’s attorne\ arJued tKat tKe board of review’s brief cited an unpubOisKed decision wKicK is proKibited b\ Supreme Court RuOe 23. AppeOOant’s attorne\ aOso arJued tKat none of tKe cases cited in tKe board of review’s brief stand for tKe proposition tKat a compuOsor\ saOe sKouOd not be used aOone to prove marNet vaOue. ,n fact Ke cited to prior PTAB pubOisKed decisions wKere tKe Board found a compuOsor\ saOe to be tKe best evidence of marNet vaOue. FinaOO\ appeOOant’s attorne\ cited prior PTAB decisions for tKe proposition tKat tKe mere submission of saOes comparabOes b\ tKe board of review is insufficient to contest tKe arm’s OenJtK nature of tKe subMect’s saOe. TKe board of review arJued tKat tKe subMect’s saOe is compuOsor\ in nature and not representative of marNet vaOue. ,n addition tKe TKe appeOOant contends tKe marNet vaOue of tKe subMect propert\ is not accurateO\ refOected

3 in its assessed vaOuation. :Ken marNet
in its assessed vaOuation. :Ken marNet vaOue is tKe basis of tKe appeaO tKe vaOue of tKe propert\ must be proved b\ a preponderance of tKe evidence. 6 ,OO.Admin.Code §110.63e. Proof of marNet vaOue ma\ consist of an appraisaO of tKe subMect propert\ a recent saOe comparabOe saOes or construction costs. 6 ,OO.Admin.Code §110.65c. TKe Board finds tKe appeOOant did not meet tion in tKe subMect s assessmenTKe Board Jives no weiJKt to tKe 200 saOe of tKe subMect because it is too remote in time to accurateO\ depict tKe marNet vaOue of tKe subMect as tKe 2013 Oien \ear at issue. TKe Board aOso Jave no weiJKt to appeOOant attorne\’s arJument tKat tKe board of review’s entire brief sKouOd be TKe ta[pa\er aOso contends assessment inequit\ as tKe basis of tKe appeaO. :Ken unequaO treatment in tKe assessment process is tKe basis of tKe appeaO tKe inequit\ of tKe assessments must be proved b\ cOear and convincinJ evidence. 6 ,OO.Admin.Code §110.63e. Proof of unequaO treatment in tKe asses

4 sment process sKouOd consist of document
sment process sKouOd consist of documentation of tKe assessments for tKe assessment \ear in question of not Oess tKan tKree comparabOe properties sKowinJ tKe simiOarit\ pro[imit\ and OacN of distinJuisKinJ cKaracteristics of tKe assessment comparabOes to tKe subMect propert\. 6 ,OO.Admin.Code §110.65b. TKe Board finds tKe appeOOant did not meet tKis burden of proof and a reduction in tKe subMect s assessment is not warranted. TKe Board finds tKe best evidence of assessment equit\ to be appeOOant s comparabOe #1 #2 and #4 and tKe board of review’s comparabOes #1 #2 #3 and #4. TKese comparabOes Kad improvement assessments tKat ranJed from $2.0 to $4.0 per square foot of OivinJ area. TKe subMect s improvement assessment of $3. per square foot of OivinJ area faOOs witKin tKe ranJe estabOisKed b\ tKe best comparabOes in tKis record. Based on tKis record tKe Board finds tKe appeOOant did not demonstrate witK cOear and convincinJ evidence tKat tKe subMect s improvement eduction in tKe subMect s asse

5 ssment is not Mustified. TKis is a fina
ssment is not Mustified. TKis is a finaO administrative decision of tKe Propert\ Ta[ AppeaO Board wKicK is subMect to review in tKe Circuit Court or AppeOOate Court under tKe provisions of tKe Administrative Review /aw 35 ,/CS 5/3-101 et seq. and section 16-15 of tKe Propert\ Ta[ Code. Pursuant to Section 110.50d of tKe ruOes of tKe Propert\ Ta[ AppeaO Board 6 ,OO.Admin.Code §110.50d tKe proceedinJ before tKe Propert\ Ta[ AppeaO Board is terminated wKen tKe decision is rendered. TKe Propert\ motion or request for CKairman Member Member Member Member D,SSENT,N*: C E R T , F , C A T , O N As COerN of tKe ,OOinois Propert\ Ta[ AppeaO Board and tKe Neeper of tKe Records tKereof , do Kereb\ certif\ tKat tKe foreJoinJ is a true fuOO and compOete FinaO Administrative Decision of tKe ",f tKe Propert\ Ta[ AppeaO Board renders a decision OowerinJ tKe assessment of a particuOar parceO after tKe deadOine for fiOinJ compOaints witK tKe Board of Review or after adMournment of tKe session

6 of tKe Board of Review at wKicK assessm
of tKe Board of Review at wKicK assessments for tKe subsequent \ear or \ears of tKe same JeneraO assessment period as provided in Sections -125 tKrouJK -225 are beinJ considered tKe ta[pa\er ma\ witKin 30 da\s after tKe date of written notice of tKe Propert\ Ta[ AppeaO Board’s decision appeaO tKe assessment for sucK subsequent \ear or \ears directO\ to tKe ,n order to compO\ witK tKe above provision { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "ImageObject", "contentUrl": "https://www.docslides.com/slides/879404/NAN_of_tKe_Board_of_Review_at_wKicK_assessm", "description": "_of_tKe_Board_of_Review_at_wKicK_assessments_for_tKe_subsequent__ear_or__ears_of_tKe_same_JeneraO_assessment_period__x00", "width": "1275" }