ILNews

Clark County loses request to impose excess property tax levy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Noting that the Clark County Council made the conscious decision to not levy the maximum amount of property taxes allowed by statute for the 2008 budget year, it cannot now claim that decision is somehow a data error that the Department of Local Government Finance could later correct, the Indiana Tax Court ruled Wednesday.

In Clark County, Indiana v. Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, 39T10-1102-TA-9, citing a nearly $4 million rainy day fund in 2007, the council decided not to tax homeowners the maximum amount permitted by law because it wanted to “take some of the burden off of the homeowners.” The DLGF advised the council at that time that such action would negatively impact what the county would be able to levy in the future based on a formula in the statute that incorporates a “use it or lose it provision.”  

The formula is cumulative in its effect. The “maximum permissible ad valorem property levy” calculated under the formula in one year provides the starting point for calculating the successive year’s “maximum permissible ad valorem property levy.” That provision has since been removed.

Clark County argued that the DLGF abused its discretion by arbitrarily and capriciously determining that the council did not make a data error, correctable under Indiana Code 6-1.1-18.5-14, when it approved its 2008 property tax levy for $2.7 million less than what was statutorily permitted. Second, Clark County argued that the DLGF contravened the law when it failed to apply retroactively the 2011 statutory amendment that eliminated the “use it or lose it” provision from the formula contained in Indiana Code 6-1.1-18.5-3. Third, Clark County claimed that the DLGF violated its due process rights.

Statute allows for correction of an objective error only, not a subjective error, Judge Martha Wentworth wrote. Despite the DLGF’s warning, the council proceeded to approve the property tax level for less than what was statutorily allowed in 2008.

“This was not an ‘error in data,’ nor was it even an error in interpreting data. Instead it was simply a failure on the part of the Council to plan for budgetary contingencies.”

The statute was not amended to eliminate the “use it or lose it” provision retroactively, Wentworth held. Also, the statute does not require DLGF to hold a hearing on Clark County’s level appeal and since the county did not provide any other legal analysis to support its claim that it has been deprived due process, Wentworth declined to reverse the DLGF’s final determination on that basis.

 

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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT