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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT