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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT