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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT