Tax Court interviews conclude; deliberations begin

October 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reporter Mike Hoskins wrote this post.

Here is the final set of three interviews, after the commission interviewed four earlier today.

Martha Wentworth: Responding to the question about what a tax judge contributes to jurisprudence and the overall judiciary, Wentworth said she looked back on many years of “State of the Judiciary” speeches to analyze the journey the state judiciary has taken. She said the Tax Court uses its regular court tools to address substantive tax jurisprudence, but also uses those tools on constitutional questions and principles of administration. You have to bring personality to any job that you have, she said, and a look back at her experience shows she has spent time advocating for continuing education and professionalism and collegiality.

Judges can’t and shouldn’t legislate, but the Tax Court can help lawmakers understand tax law and issues. Unintended consequences of state statute changes seems to be the most frequent issue, and she’s a true believer that everyone must work together to some extent in understanding the challenges of the legislature and executive branch and the tax court itself. Wentworth said the state faces so many intriguing and challenging legal questions on tax law, such as what is considered distortion on taxes, the amount of discretion the Department of Revenue has in allowing separate corporate entities to file separate or joint returns, and how the state agency can discretionarily change federal taxable income. While Wentworth acknowledged that she’d be giving up a lot professionally, she said it’s worth it because of the pride she takes in Indiana having fair and strong caselaw, and ensuring that Indiana stand outs on tax law and in the overall judiciary.

Dan Carwile: He sees a transition from the private sector to this as completely appropriate, and said he’s demonstrated that he’s a leader in his community and profession. Through its regular court resources and the programs the state judiciary offers, the Tax Court judge can address the economic issues and sometimes can address a poor public perception of the court system. Judges can go too far and be too aggressive in communicating with the legislature, he said, and a balance must be struck through scholarly writing and presentations and even in general expertise-sharing with lawmakers. The next Tax Court judge must be a strategic thinker in helping the judiciary move forward, and caseload efficiency is an important part of that, as is protecting and enhancing Indiana’s national reputation as a leader. He sees tax exemptions on property as an issue that will likely be before the court more regularly in coming years.

Hon. Carol Comer: Judge Comer talked about her 15 years on the administrative and regulatory side of the law and five years as Administrative Law Judge. She believes this experience, particularly in handling small docket type claims, has paved the way for this judicial opening and her work in this area gives her insight into what pro se litigants face. She says the court process is frightening to non-lawyers, and that the judiciary and Tax Court must do its best to offer transparency and access to the public. She said claims can act as summons and the court’s Web page can offer more information about enacting court procedures. Possible moves could be to create a sample docket for the public to see how a case might proceed, or to create a hotline for people to learn about the process and what to expect. Just as the Department of Revenue allows for online tax filing and payment, the court could do something like that to increase public accessibility. In the past several years, she’s observed a tremendous change in how the state agencies work on these tax and financial issues and that the Board of Tax Review has become more impartial for taxpayers and regular reversals isn’t the norm any longer.


Post a comment to this story

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
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.