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.
 

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. 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