ILNews

Apartment creates issue of first impression

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an issue of first impression, the Indiana Tax Court decided housing owned by a non-profit that receives governmental subsidies to rent to low- and moderate-income people at below-market rates is not property used for a charitable purpose.

At issue in Jamestown Homes of Mishawaka, Inc. v. St. Joseph County Assessor,  No. 49T10-0802-TA-17, is whether the Indiana Board of Tax Review erred in denying Jamestown Homes a property tax exemption for the 2005 tax year by ruling Jamestown's apartment complex didn't qualify for the charitable purposes exemption provided in Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-10-16.

Jamestown is a non-profit corporation formed in 1965 to provide housing based on Section 221(d)(3) of Title II of the National Housing Act. Under the program, the federal government insured and subsidized low-interest loans to private developers that agreed to rent to people at certain income levels and charge rents that would cover operating costs and debt service only. Jamestown was also allowed to evict tenants who don't pay rent and charge late fees and security deposits.

The apartments were built in 1970, but Jamestown didn't apply for the property tax exemption until the 2005 tax year. The St. Joseph County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals denied the application; the Indiana Board of Tax Review affirmed. The board found Jamestown's apartments weren't rented to low- and moderate-income people for any kind of charitable purpose but because it was a condition of its agreement with the federal government. It also ruled the government was shouldering the financial burden of providing the low-cost housing.

On appeal, Jamestown argued it met the burden of proving its property is entitled to the tax exemption, saying it performed a service that the federal, state, and local government would have an obligation to do if it weren't for Jamestown. It also provides affordable housing with no expectation of financial gain.

Because this is an issue of first impression in Indiana, Judge Thomas Fisher looked to other courts for their rulings and adopted the reasoning provided in the New Mexico case Mountain View Homes, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 427 P.2d 13 (N.M. 1967). That case was based on a similar situation and exemption provision as in the instant case.

Using the ruling from Mountain View, the Indiana Tax Court affirmed the Indiana Tax Review Board's final decision. There's no evidence any welfare clients live in Jamestown's apartments nor is there evidence tenants can continue to live there when they can't pay their rent, wrote Judge Fisher. There's no evidence Jamestown provided good fellowship intended to improve the spirits of its tenants nor is there evidence showing Jamestown has lessened the burden of government in meeting the need for affordable housing. That need is ultimately being met by the government through its mortgage insurance and interest subsidy, wrote the judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Have been seeing this wonderful physician for a few years and was one of his patients who told him about what we were being told at CVS. Multiple ones. This was a witch hunt and they shold be ashamed of how patients were treated. Most of all, CVS should be ashamed for what they put this physician through. So thankful he fought back. His office is no "pill mill'. He does drug testing multiple times a year and sees patients a minimum of four times a year.

  2. Brian W, I fear I have not been sufficiently entertaining to bring you back. Here is a real laugh track that just might do it. When one is grabbed by the scruff of his worldview and made to choose between his Confession and his profession ... it is a not a hard choice, given the Confession affects eternity. But then comes the hardship in this world. Imagine how often I hear taunts like yours ... "what, you could not even pass character and fitness after they let you sit and pass their bar exam ... dude, there must really be something wrong with you!" Even one of the Bishop's foremost courtiers said that, when explaining why the RCC refused to stand with me. You want entertaining? How about watching your personal economy crash while you have a wife and five kids to clothe and feed. And you can't because you cannot work, because those demanding you cast off your Confession to be allowed into "their" profession have all the control. And you know that they are wrong, dead wrong, and that even the professional code itself allows your Faithful stand, to wit: "A lawyer may refuse to comply with an obligation imposed by law upon a good faith belief that no valid obligation exists. The provisions of Rule 1.2(d) concerning a good faith challenge to the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law apply to challenges of legal regulation of the practice of law." YET YOU ARE A NONPERSON before the BLE, and will not be heard on your rights or their duties to the law -- you are under tyranny, not law. And so they win in this world, you lose, and you lose even your belief in the rule of law, and demoralization joins poverty, and very troubling thoughts impeaching self worth rush in to fill the void where your career once lived. Thoughts you did not think possible. You find yourself a failure ... in your profession, in your support of your family, in the mirror. And there is little to keep hope alive, because tyranny rules so firmly and none, not the church, not the NGO's, none truly give a damn. Not even a new court, who pay such lip service to justice and ancient role models. You want entertainment? Well if you are on the side of the courtiers running the system that has crushed me, as I suspect you are, then Orwell must be a real riot: "There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — forever." I never thought they would win, I always thought that at the end of the day the rule of law would prevail. Yes, the rule of man's law. Instead power prevailed, so many rules broken by the system to break me. It took years, but, finally, the end that Dr Bowman predicted is upon me, the end that she advised the BLE to take to break me. Ironically, that is the one thing in her far left of center report that the BLE (after stamping, in red ink, on Jan 22) is uninterested in, as that the BLE and ADA office that used the federal statute as a sword now refuses to even dialogue on her dire prediction as to my fate. "C'est la vie" Entertaining enough for you, status quo defender?

  3. Low energy. Next!

  4. Had William Pryor made such provocative statements as a candidate for the Indiana bar he could have been blackballed as I have documented elsewhere on this ezine. That would have solved this huuuge problem for the Left and abortion industry the good old boy (and even girl) Indiana way. Note that Diane Sykes could have made a huuge difference, but she chose to look away like most all jurists who should certainly recognize a blatantly unconstitutional system when filed on their docket. See footnotes 1 & 2 here: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html Sykes and Kanne could have applied a well established exception to Rooker Feldman, but instead seemingly decided that was not available to conservative whistleblowers, it would seem. Just a loss and two nice footnotes to numb the pain. A few short years later Sykes ruled the very opposite on the RF question, just as she had ruled the very opposite on RF a few short years before. Indy and the abortion industry wanted me on the ground ... they got it. Thank God Alabama is not so corrupted! MAGA!!!

  5. OK, take notice. Those wondering just how corrupt the Indiana system is can see the picture in this post. Attorney Donald James did not criticize any judges, he merely, it would seem, caused some clients to file against him and then ignored his own defense. James thus disrespected the system via ignoring all and was also ordered to reimburse the commission $525.88 for the costs of prosecuting the first case against him. Yes, nearly $526 for all the costs, the state having proved it all. Ouch, right? Now consider whistleblower and constitutionalist and citizen journalist Paul Ogden who criticized a judge, defended himself in such a professional fashion as to have half the case against him thrown out by the ISC and was then handed a career ending $10,000 bill as "half the costs" of the state crucifying him. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/ogden-quitting-law-citing-high-disciplinary-fine/PARAMS/article/35323 THE TAKEAWAY MESSAGE for any who have ears to hear ... resist Star Chamber and pay with your career ... welcome to the Indiana system of (cough) justice.

ADVERTISEMENT