ILNews

Court: No rehearing based on another decision

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court granted a petition for rehearing to clarify its ruling that a Hamilton County property qualified for a charitable/religious exemption. The Tax Court also denied rehearing a St. Joseph County case that claimed the decision in that case should be reconsidered based on the original ruling in the Hamilton County case.

On Wednesday, the Tax Court granted the petition for rehearing in Oaken Bucket Partners, LLC v. Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, et al., No. 49T10-0612-TA-113, and affirmed its previous decision in its entirety. The Tax Court held that a portion of Oaken Bucket's real property qualified for a charitable/religious purposes exemption for the 2004 tax year under Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-10-16. The Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and the county assessor filed a petition for rehearing because they believed the court committed reversible error when it failed to find Oaken Bucket had been prejudiced and that the earlier decision conflicts with Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Kent, 50 N.E. 562 (Ind. 1898), and Spohn v. Stark, 150 N.E. 787 (Ind. 1926).

The Tax Court disagreed, finding that when it determined that the Indiana Board's final determination wasn't supported by substantial evidence, it necessarily meant that the court found that Oaken Bucket had been prejudiced, wrote Judge Thomas Fisher. I.C. Section 33-26-6-4 doesn't state that a party may only be harmed when it suffers financial loss, but that the actions of the Indiana Board are the catalysts of prejudice.

Judge Fisher didn't find Oaken Bucket to conflict with the 1898 or 1926 decisions from the Indiana Supreme Court and pointed out that in 1975 the legislature rewrote the statute those cases relied on and removed certain words to make it less restrictive.

"In this case, the totality of the evidence established that Oaken Bucket possessed its own charitable purpose and that its property was both occupied and predominately used for religious purposes," he wrote.

The Tax Court denied rehearing in Jamestown Homes of Mishawaka, Inc. v. St. Joseph County Assessor, No. 49T10-0802-TA-17, which the court originally handed down the same day as its ruling in Oaken Bucket. The Tax Court affirmed that Jamestown Homes of Mishawaka wasn't entitled to a property tax exemption on apartments it leased to low- and moderate-income people for below-market rent. Jamestown petitioned for rehearing, believing the Tax Court has to reconsider its decision based on the ruling in Oaken Bucket, and because the Tax Court created a new burden of proof.

In Oaken Bucket, there was no question the subject property was occupied and used for religious purposes; Jamestown, however, failed to show that its federal-subsidized, low-income housing was property used for a charitable purpose, Judge Fisher wrote.

Jamestown also claimed the Tax Court strayed from applying the well-established test for determining whether property qualifies for the exemption and applied a "new test." But the Tax Court didn't apply a new test and actually just explained to Jamestown that in order to meet its burden of proof, it had to do more than make statements that the provision of low-income housing is a charitable purpose, wrote the judge.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT