ILNews

Court affirms higher home assessment as compared to neighbors

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court Thursday affirmed the 2007 assessment of a property in an upscale community on Lake Michigan, rejecting the homeowner’s argument that the assessment should be lower because surrounding homes were assessed at a lower ratio when taking into account the prices at which the homes were sold.

William Thorsness appealed the $1,647,800 assessment of the property he purchased on Jan. 31, 2007, for $1.65 million. He argued that his assessment should be reduced to $1,311,750, which is 79.5 percent of the purchase price. He came up with this percentage after looking at six other residential properties in his neighborhood and found, on average, they were assessed at 79.5 percent of their recent sale prices.

The Indiana Board of Tax Review affirmed the assessment, finding Thorsness’ “ratio study” didn’t meet the criteria for ratio studies.  Because of that, it was not probative in demonstrating that his property was inequitably or non-uniformly assessed.

He appealed in February 2011, and the Tax Court heard arguments in August 2011.

In William W. Thorsness v. Porter County Assessor, 49T10-1102-TA-14, Thorsness claimed the tax board erred in determining that he, and not the assessor, bore the burden of proof at the administrative hearing. Second, he claimed that the board erred in determining that his evidence was not probative in demonstrating that the assessor’s assessment lacked uniformity.

In 2009, the General Assembly established an exception to the rule that a taxpayer always bears the burden of proof when challenging property tax assessments – I.C. 6-1.1-15-1(p), “the burden-shifting rule.” The exception occurs when the assessed value increases by more than five percent over the preceding assessment date.

“[T]he Indiana Board’s mistake does not constitute reversible error in this case because the burden-shifting rule contained in Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1(p) (and its progeny) applies only to valuation challenges, not to uniform and equal constitutional challenges for the following reasons,” Judge Martha Blood Wentworth wrote.

She noted that while Thorsness’ data on his neighbors’ assessments is relevant, the board didn’t err in determining it was not probative in demonstrating that his property was assessed and taxed at a level that exceeded the common level within the township overall. The standards outlined by the Department of Local Government Finance require a statistical measure of assessment uniformity must be calculated for the entire taxing district and each stratum therein.
 

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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT