The interviews continue

September 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

From IL reporter Michael Hoskins:

Andrew Swain
He said the Tax Court would take his career to the next level, and he’d be able to continue ensuring fair application of tax laws for the state and people as he now does for the Indiana Attorney General’s Office. Talking about his experience in Colorado, Swain said that Indiana is different because of the Tax Court - Colorado doesn’t have one - and that means this state has a clearer, non-repetitious system where you aren’t wasting time and re-litigating the same issues because of a lack of common tax concepts. He described the Miller Brewing case as an example of how the Indiana Tax Court got it right about income tax sourcing, and he also discussed his role in coming up with a novel concept for how the state could go after delinquent taxpayers on issues such as stereo equipment dealers and puppy mills. However, he said the state shouldn’t use taxes to address social issues. Commissioners also pressed him about mediations for Tax Court, and Swain said he’s in favor of that generally but that he doesn’t see ADR Rule 2.7(b)2 about lawyers having to be present at mediation applying to the Tax Court because the AG and governor must first sign off on any settlements.

Hon. Bruce Kolb
The Tax Court has had significant impact in the past, but he sees that impact growing as more tax disputes arise and as corporations and lawmakers study different tax areas that present issues of first impression. That should be examined, he said. Bruce Kolb also said the state’s inheritance tax areas do not have much caselaw. He talked about how his entire legal career has involved him working for the state, and his current role as Administrative Law Judge for both the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and Department of Revenue. He said he hears commercial driver’s license cases, and 99 percent of those are pro se, so he makes those litigants feel at ease, explaining process and trying to answer any questions. He wants to look at and foster more on the area of pro se, and he also wondered why only one case from 2007 has been the only one in three years referred for mediation. One has to be careful not to create law and go beyond the statutes, as he said may have happened in the past. Studying his workload, Kolb said that in 28 instances he’s signed off on letters of findings in which he might have a conflict and he’d have to discuss those potential issues with the parties.

Marilyn Meighen
Marilyn Meighen has been helping to shape tax laws for most of her legal career and this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to continue that path at a whole other level. She highlighted her experience second-chairing the case that “changed the world” in tax law - Town of St. John. Now being down in the trenches after leaving the Attorney General’s Office, Meighen said she has more flexibility in litigating and handling cases. Her work defending assessments might be perceived as a conflict, but she said her credibility is always on the line and she does a fair assessment of every case to make sure what’s being done is right. She thinks the Tax Court’s small-claims division needs to be examined more so that someone challenging their assessments shouldn’t have to hire an attorney. She noted that she respects Judge Fisher and the court, but has different perspectives on issues such as exemptions for property-tax cases being narrowly construed.



 

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
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT