(Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds no change in the assessment of the
property as established by the Lake County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 108,755
IMPR.: $ 173,980
TOTAL: $ 282,735
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 6
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Muzaffer & Ambareen Sheriff
DOCKET NO.: 06-01254.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 14-13-301-009
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Muzaffer & Ambareen Sheriff, the appellants; and the Lake County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of an 80,238 square foot lot improved with a two-story brick dwelling that was built in 2006 and contains 5,193 square feet of living area. Features of the home include central air conditioning, two fireplaces, a 1,056 square foot garage and full unfinished basement.
The appellants appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board claiming overvaluation as the basis of the appeal. In support of this argument, the appellants indicated on their petition that the subject lot was purchased in January 2003 for $294,000 and that the subject dwelling was inhabitable and fit for occupancy in July 2006 and that its total construction cost was $750,000. The appellants claimed that, as of January 1, 2006, the subject dwelling was no more than 40% complete and that its assessment should reflect this. The appellants failed to submit a contractor's affidavit or detailed summary of construction costs associated with the subject dwelling. Based on this evidence, the appellants requested the subject's land assessment be reduced to $96,500 and its improvement assessment be reduced to $150,000.
At the hearing, the appellants testified their land had lost value because a pond on the property reduced the amount of buildable land.
During cross examination, the board of review's representative asked the appellants if they had submitted any photos of the subject dwelling under construction, any record of draws on a construction loan, or any evidence from a contractor. The appellants acknowledged they had submitted no such evidence.
The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on Appeal", wherein the subject property's total assessment of