Indiana Tax Court

Jerrells: Thoughts on the Ad Hoc Tax Court Task Force report

June 15, 2016
Though naysayers may decry the costs of adding a magistrate, two additional judges, or both, it would be a small cost to avoid justice delayed and, therefore, justice denied.
More

Tax Court upholds $592,000 assessment on lakehouse

June 7, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Tax Court affirmed an appraisal of $592,000 for a woman’s property, holding the owner appealing the judgment failed to relate her evidence for a lower appraisal to a Jan. 1, 2008, valuation date.
More

West Lafayette business owner scores victory in Tax Court

June 3, 2016
Jennifer Nelson
The owner of two shops that sold books, music and other items, as well as rented movies, got a favorable ruling regarding his adjusted gross income tax owed in the Indiana Tax Court Friday.
More

Tax court adjusts sales, use taxes for contractor

May 20, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Tax Court reversed some issues and affirmed others related to Miller Pipeline's claim of refund of sales and use taxes remitted for the 2006 and 2007 tax years, ruling the contractor overpaid by tens of thousands of dollars.
More

Appellate pleadings and motions going online pushed to July 1

May 9, 2016
Scott Roberts
In its third meeting, the Advisory Task Force on Remote Access to and Privacy of Electronic Court Records shifted discussion to what types of trial court cases should be made available online at mycase.in.gov and any potential issues in doing so.
More

Couple must pay taxes on home even if it wasn’t completed

May 5, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Tax Court upheld a decision Wednesday from the Indiana Board of Tax Review which said a couple must pay taxes on their residence whether or not it was completed.
More

Tax court: Fees not subject to utility receipt tax

May 2, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Tax Court found a utility’s nontaxable connection fees were separated from taxable receipts on its returns and were therefore not subject to Indiana’s utility receipt tax.
More

Man again wins tax claim in part; full decision awaits

April 15, 2016
Scott Roberts
Nick Popovich’s ongoing saga with the Indiana Tax Court continued Thursday as he again won a partial victory against the Indiana Department of State Revenue.
More

E-filing pleadings to be mandatory July 1

April 12, 2016
After deciding last week all appellate pleadings and motions would be available online at mycase.in.gov within the next 60 days, the Indiana Supreme Court announced Tuesday electronic filing of all pleadings to pending cases will become mandatory for all attorneys in Indiana appellate courts as well as Hamilton County Circuit and Superior Courts July 1.
More

Tax Court: Mall property value should be reduced

April 11, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Board of Tax Review did not err when it reduced the property assessments of Lafayette Square Mall for 2006 and 2007, the Indiana Tax Court ruled Friday.
More

Appellate pleadings, motions to be put online sometime in next 60 days

April 11, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Supreme Court task force created to look into remote access and privacy of electronic records has decided appellate pleadings and motions filed by attorneys will be put online at mycase.in.gov sometime within the next 60 days
More

State appellate briefs make online debut

April 1, 2016
IL Staff
Briefs filed in Indiana appeals were made available for online for the first time Friday.
More

Interim appellate court clerk replaces Smith

April 1, 2016
Dave Stafford
Long-serving Indiana appellate court clerk Kevin S. Smith resigned recently, and former deputy clerk Greg Pachmayr is now serving as interim clerk.
More

Man, IRS win split Tax Court decisions

March 7, 2016
Scott Roberts
The Indiana Tax Court ruled Nick Popovich should get $24,963 for successfully prosecuting his first motion to compel against the Indiana Department of Revenue, but ruled the Department of Revenue should get $5,175.25 in court fees for successfully defending Popovich’s second motion to compel.
More

Appellate court filings to be put online April 1

February 29, 2016
Scott Roberts
A task force created by the Indiana Supreme Court to look into remote access and privacy of electronic records decided appellate court briefs filed by attorneys would be put online at mycase.in.gov beginning April 1.
More

Tax Court seeks comment on e-filing rules

February 23, 2016
IL Staff
Indiana Tax Court is soliciting comments on proposed rule changes to provide for electronic filing and service of documents, excluding initial case filings.
More

Supreme Court vacates Tax Court ruling in seized-dogs case

February 9, 2016
Dave Stafford
An Indiana Tax Court ruling that the state improperly denied a refund of the value of 240 dogs seized from an alleged puppy mill in southern Indiana was vacated Monday by the Indiana Supreme Court.
More

Tax Court upholds land reclassification over assessor’s objection

February 1, 2016
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Tax Court affirmed a final determination by the state Board of Tax Review to reclassify nearly 3 acres of property from excess residential to agricultural, finding enough evidence to support the decision.
More

Council resolution did not waive requirements for tax deduction

December 31, 2015
The Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination that the city of Bluffton’s Common Council waived a company’s compliance with certain statutory requirements for its 2013 personal property tax abatement deduction is contrary to law, Indiana Tax Judge Martha Wentworth ruled Thursday.
More

County scores partial victory on mall assessments

December 30, 2015
Jennifer Nelson
The Marion County assessor, who argued the values assigned to Washington Square mall for 2006-2010 were too low, will see an uptick in the assessed value of the mall in three of those years following a ruling from the Indiana Tax Court.
More

Man did not provide enough evidence to support lower home valuations

December 30, 2015
Jennifer Nelson
A homeowner seeking to reduce the valuation of his residential properties did not provide enough evidence to the Indiana Board of Tax Review to support his argument, the Indiana Tax Court ruled Wednesday in two separate appeals.
More

6 counties next in line for trial court e-filing

December 28, 2015
 Associated Press
Six Indiana counties — Clark, Harrison, Henry, St. Joseph, Shelby and Wells — will be joining Hamilton County in implementing e-filing in the trial courts during the first half of 2016, with more to come later.
More

Court rules in favor of Columbia Sportswear in income tax dispute

December 21, 2015
Jennifer Nelson
The Indiana Tax Court ruled Friday that the Indiana Department of State Revenue’s adjustments to Columbia Sportwear’s net income for tax years 2005-2007 were not proper and granted summary judgment in favor of the clothing company.
More

Blended gasoline raises question of tax exemption

December 15, 2015
Marilyn Odendahl
A convenience store’s process for mixing two grades of gasoline left too many questions unanswered for the Indiana Tax Court to determine if the equipment used in the blending process was tax exempt.
More

Indiana Tax Court moves to e-filing in January

December 9, 2015
IL Staff
Beginning Jan. 4, all three of Indiana’s appellate courts will accept electronic filing. Indiana Chief Justice Loretta Rush signed an order Wednesday announcing the Tax Court’s addition to the e-filing project.
More
Page  << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 >> pager
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT