ILNews

Judge upholds 2009 tax year exemption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court rejected the Hamilton County assessor’s claim that a for-profit limited liability company created to purchase office space for its nonprofit tissue donation company should not qualify for a charitable purposes exemption for the 2009 tax year.

New Life Generation Inc. was created in May 2008 as a nonprofit to procure tissue donations, perform donation recoveries, and provide related donor services. After New Life had trouble renting suitable space, its owners formed SPD, a LLC, to purchase an office building. It leased a portion of the building to New Life for a 10-year period. New Life paid rent in the amount of SPD’s mortgage, as well as all real and personal property taxes and other expenses.

SPD requested a charitable purposes exemption for the 2009 tax year, which the Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals denied. SPD appealed, and the Indiana Board of Tax Review granted the exemption.

In Hamilton County Assessor v. SPD Realty, LLC, 49T10-1104-TA-28, the assessor contended that the board’s final determination is contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence because New Life did not occupy and use the property for a charitable purpose;  SPD did not own the property for a charitable purpose; and the property was not  predominately used for charitable purposes. In its final determination, the IBTR explained that it found that New Life occupied and used the property for a charitable purpose because the parties did not appear to dispute the issue.

There is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that New Life occupied and used the property for a charitable purpose, Judge Martha Wentworth wrote, because the assessor did not challenge SPD’s claims regarding New Life’s charitable purpose or present evidence to the contrary. Instead, the assessor focused primarily on whether SPD had a charitable purpose.

The IBTR also determined that the totality of the evidence demonstrated that SPD owned the property for a charitable purpose. The totality of the evidence indicates that the arrangement between SPD and New Life was not a typical landlord-tenant relationship and that SPD did not have a profit motive, Wentworth wrote. The evidence of the close relationship between these two entities does support the finding that each has a similar charitable purpose. Wentworth declined to reweigh the evidence in the assessor’s favor.

Wentworth also rejected the assessor’s claim that the board incorrectly determined that SPD’s property was predominately used for charitable purposes. The language of I.C. 6-1.1-10-36.3(a) “clearly requires that a property be used or occupied for charitable purposes for more than 50% of the time that it is actually used or occupied during the tax year at issue. Here, the evidence shows that in the four months the property was used and occupied, it was used 100% of the time for the charitable purpose of operating a tissue bank,” she wrote.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT