ILNews

7 semi-finalists still vying for Tax Court

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Seven attorneys remain in the running to be the next Indiana Tax Court judge, and they return for second interviews before the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission Oct. 27. Here is a glimpse of the seven who made it past the first cut from the 14 who went through the first interviews.
 

George Angelone Angelone

George T. Angelone

Indianapolis attorney with the Legislative Services Agency who was admitted to practice in 1976.

Angelone has three decades of experience reviewing tax and public finance work. He knows the legislature, the legal environment, and workings of tax court caseload, and is committed to outreach to improve the profession. He can bring a methodical approach to analyze and apply the law, and knows how all the pieces fit together. He said more can be done locally to improve the tax law process because two- or three-year waits aren’t efficient.


Dan Carwile Carwile

Dan J. Carwile

Banking attorney who is senior vice president with Old National Wealth Management in Evansville. He was admitted to practice in 1983.

Carwile said his experience has prepared him for this post, and he emphasized his hard work and ethics as being important. He said he’d be sensitive to pro se litigants and small-claims issues.


Carol Comer Comer

Hon. Carol S. Comer

Administrative law judge with the Indiana Board of Tax Review who has been practicing since 1996.

Judge Comer’s entire career has been spent on the administrative side and she has handled all issues, including reworking the tax board’s procedural rules in 2007 because of the assessment law and agency structure changes. She said it’s important to be mindful of caselaw exemptions that can build up and prevent a big ruling like Town of St. John, and that the court could work with the legislature to ensure that it understands constitutionality.


Joby Jarrells Jerrells

Joby D. Jerrells

Second-career attorney admitted in 2003 who works in the Indiana Attorney General’s Office as a deputy prosecutor and also a self-employed attorney out of his home in Bloomington.

Jerrells discussed the variety of his workload and his work on the Trump and Aztar cases, which allowed him to use his policy-analysis skills and also showed him how the principles of the law apply more than the dollar amount.


Karen Love Love

Hon. Karen M. Love

Hendricks Superior judge since 1995 after practicing privately and working previously as a certified accountant. She was admitted to practice in 1986.

She discussed with commission members what she calls the “ABCs” of this position, which she described as meaning the attitude of a judge, the balance she can bring based on her experience, and those critical aspects of clarity, consistency, and communication. Judge Love helped draft the child support guidelines and she said her work on the domestic relations committee has been the most rewarding.


Melony Sacopulos Sacopulos

Melony A. Sacopulos

General counsel at Indiana State University in Terre Haute who has been practicing since 1988.

Sacopulos said her university experience means handling many different areas each day and having to make prudent judgment calls that impact someone’s life or career. The judge’s opinions that interpret statute should be the extent of the relationship between the court and legislature, she said.


Martha Wentworth Wentworth

Martha B. Wentworth

Tax director at the Greenwood-based multistate group Deloitte Tax LLP who’s previously served in roles that included clerking for the Tax Court in the early 1990s. She was admitted to practice in 1990.

Wentworth has seen the devastating impact on taxpayers from adverse tax decisions, and she has worked closely with the state Department of Revenue and knows how significant those rulings can be for the agencies and government. She wasn’t sure how she would have ruled on the Town of St. John case. She said access and transparency on the court is important in helping people understand these tax laws.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT