ILNews

Clarifications of statute still keep burden of proof on county assessor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A county assessor’s attempt to shift the burden of proof onto a landowner in a dispute over a property assessment that increased more than 5 percent failed to convince the Indiana Tax Court.

In Orange County Assessor v. James E. Stout, 49T10-1112-TA-94, the Tax Court affirmed the finding by the Indiana Board of Tax Review that the assessor bore the burden of proving that Stout’s land assessment was proper.

The assessor appealed, claiming the board incorrectly applied the 2011 statute to an assessment that was made for the 2009 tax year. The review board used Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-17 to find the assessor had to prove the assessment that had increased more than 5 percent in one year was proper. Stout’s assessed value ballooned from $8,000 in 2008 to $45,600 in 2009.

Dismantling the assessor’s appeal, the Tax Court pointed out two reasons why the argument failed.  

First, the Tax Court rejected the claim that I.C. 6-1.1-15-17 is not a new statute. The General Assembly established the assessor had the burden of proof in 2009. It subsequently clarified the statute in 2011 but still gave the assessor the burden of proof.

Second, the Tax Court did not agree with the assessor’s contention that for I.C. 6-1.1-15-17 to apply, the assessment and appeal must have occurred after the statute’s effective date.

The Tax Court held the 2009 and 2011 statutes both indicate the burden of proof shifts from the taxpayer to an assessing office when the taxpayer files an appeal to an assessment that increases by more than 5 percent from one year to the next.

“This shift in burden of proof applies to the process and procedure of appeals alone, not to the mechanics of valuing property as of a certain assessment date,” Judge Martha Wentworth wrote. “Accordingly, the statutes apply to all pending appeals regardless of assessment dates.”

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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  3. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

  4. A great idea! There is absolutely no need to incarcerate HRC's so-called "super predators" now that they can be adequately supervised on the streets by the BLM czars.

  5. One of the only qualms I have with this article is in the first paragraph, that heroin use is especially dangerous because it is highly addictive. All opioids are highly addictive. It is why, after becoming addicted to pain medications prescribed by their doctors for various reasons, people resort to heroin. There is a much deeper issue at play, and no drug use should be taken lightly in this category.

ADVERTISEMENT