Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2006-02518-R-1 Turner

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds a reduction in the assessment of the
property as established by the Tazewell County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 8,940
IMPR.: $ 33,607
TOTAL: $ 42,547
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/JUNE.09/BUL-7693
1 of 1
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: James and Katherine Turner
DOCKET NO.: 06-02518.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 05-05-09-305-003
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are James and Katherine Turner, the appellants, and the Tazewell County Board of Review.
The subject property is a one-story frame dwelling containing 1,450 square feet of living area that was built in 2005. Features include a crawl space foundation, central air conditioning, and a 576 square foot attached garage. The dwelling is situated on a 10,000 square foot lot.
The appellants submitted evidence before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming unequal treatment in the assessment process and overvaluation as the bases of the appeal. In support of these claims, the appellants submitted photographs, a settlement statement, an appraisal and three assessment comparables.
The assessment comparables consist of one-story frame dwellings that are two years old. The comparables are located from across the street to ½ of a block along the subject's street. The comparables have crawl space foundations, central air conditioning and 576 square foot garages. The dwellings contain 1,440 or 1,450 square feet of living area and have improvement assessments ranging from $35,900 to $36,870. The subject property has an improvement assessment of $34,710. The comparables are situated on lots that range in size range in size from 9,829 to 12,250 square feet of land area and have land assessments ranging from $6,760 to $8,940. The subject property has a land assessment of $8,940.
In support of the overvaluation argument, the appellants submitted a settlement statement indicating the subject property was purchased for $128,000 in November 2005. The appellant also submitted a limited appraisal estimating the subject property had a market value of $127,000 as of October 2005. Based on this evidence, the appellants requested a reduction in the subject's land assessment to $7,300, no change in the improvement