ILNews

Practitioners say recent tax rulings help clarify precedent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When Indianapolis attorney Larry Stroble read two recent rulings from the Indiana Tax Court, he saw one consistent message that speaks broadly to an overall inadequacy of the legal system.

That lesson: Courts don't always provide enough guidance when issuing decisions, and that leads to more litigation in order to flesh out a final resolution.

Now, the pair of tax rulings reaches back more than a decade to when the Indiana Supreme Court threw out the state's property-tax infrastructure, which led to what attorneys describe as confusion for tax practitioners, assessors, appraisers, and property owners.

"The lack of guidance on this issue has shown a weakness of our system," the Barnes & Thornburg partner said. "These are important decisions, but I wouldn't go as far as saying they're landmark rulings. I'd say it's a step forward in clarifying a basic principle in determining property value using market valuation."

Indiana Tax Court Judge Thomas Fisher issued rulings March 26 in Meijer Stores Limited Partnership v. Betty Smith, Wayne Twp. Assessor, et al., No. 49T10-0609-TA-89, and Sue Ann Stinson, in her official capacity as the Washington Township Assessor, et al. v. Trimas Fasteners, Inc., No. 49T10-0702-TA-4, which both help lay out more guidance since the landmark Indiana Supreme Court decision in 1998.

In State Board. of Tax Comm'rs v. Town of St. John, 702 N.E.2d 1034, 1043 (Ind. 1998), justices held that the tax statutes at the time violated the Indiana Constitution's property-taxation clause. The court determined that real property must be assessed on the basis of "market value inuse," which is the value "of a property for its current use, as reflected by the utility received by the owner or a similar user, from the property," according to the state assessment manual. That system began in 2002. But the ruling didn't spell out how appraisals should be used to determine the "in-use" standards for the non-residential property-tax assessments.

Since then tax attorneys say the process has remained unclear about how the valuations are actually to be determined. That may be changing with these recent Tax Court rulings, though.

Stroble and his colleagues agree that these decisions are part of a larger puzzle spelling out how the property-tax assessment process and subsequent litigation should be handled.

Judge Fisher rejected assessor appraisals and found in favor of the property owners, based on specific market data. In both cases, the property owners cited external obsolescence - a loss of value that may be caused by an oversupply of the type of space it provides, light or noise pollution, crime, or other issues.

In Meijer, the retailer appealed its property assessments, charging they were too high. The Wayne County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals subsequently valued the property as: $10,954,800 for 2002; $12,420,400 for 2003; and $12,132,000 for 2005. Meijer then appealed to the Indiana Board of Tax Review and hired a licensed Indiana appraiser to complete an independent appraisal, which showed the value at $6.3 million for those years.

The appraiser Meijer hired used a cost approach, a sales comparison approach and an income approach, but in reconciling the value estimates, he concluded the sales comparison approach was the most reliable. The Wayne Township Assessor didn't present any evidence at a hearing but rejected those methods. In ruling on the issue, the tax board held the appraiser had utilized properties that weren't "comparable" to the Meijer property.

Judge Fisher reversed the tax board's judgment, finding that Meijer's appraisal was based on more reliable evidence presented in the case. Those representing Meijer were Baker & Daniels attorneys Brent Auberry, Jon Laramore, and Stephen Paul; they declined to comment on the rulings because the lawyers weren't certain if rehearings or appeals would be sought.

In the Trimas decision, Judge Fisher heard a case involving the Washington Township Assessor's office in Clinton County and an industrial complex in Frankfort. For the 2002 assessment, the assessor valued the 200,000-square-foot Trimas facility on 44 acres to be worth $7.7 million, though it was later reduced to $7.2 million. Trimas appealed and argued - based on an appraisal conforming to the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice - the property's market value-in-use was $2.9 million. The assessor presented an appraisal along with testimony of the appraiser that the market value-in-use of Trimas' property was $8 million on March 1, 2002.

The state's tax board later decided the company's appraisal was more probative than the assessor's data and reduced Trimas' assessment to $2.9 million. The local assessor appealed, and Judge Fisher ruled that other comparable properties since vacated could be used in the analysis.

"Generally speaking, market value-inuse, as determined by objectively verifiable market data, is the value of a property for its use, not the value of its use," Judge Fisher wrote.

Trimas' attorneys, David Suess and Thomas Atherton at Bose McKinney & Evans, described the rulings a triumph for the property owners. They said it was entirely consistent with what the Supreme Court had said in the 1998 decision, that market value means more than looking at the sticks and bricks.

"I don't see this as a revolutionary decision," Atherton said. "In 1998 we were sent on a voyage of complete subjectivity to objectivity, and this case is an important stop on that voyage," he said. "If you look at the two cases jointly, this will eliminate a theory being advanced that vacant properties are inherently less valuable than those occupied as far as what you could sell it for."

Suess said from a practitioner's point of view, the rulings reinforce that it's important for any party to get appraisals and evidence in on a timely fashion. That didn't happen in the Meijer case when the board excluded the assessor's late filings, he said.

Analyzing the decisions, Stroble said this isn't the end of the issues. More lawsuits will need to go before the appellate courts, he said.

"This is a growing problem, as assessors and taxpayers continue trying to arrive at the best market value," he said. "It will take several other decisions to completely establish a clear picture and a full set of rules for assessors and appraisers to follow."

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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT