ILNews

Indiana's tax judge to retire

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

When comparing his past two jobs, Judge Thomas G. Fisher admits that he finds stories from his prosecutor days more interesting than those in the past quarter century when he’s presided over the state’s appellate tax court.

Anyone listening at a cocktail might agree, the veteran judge said with a laugh.

But that story-telling excitement – or lack of one as he sees it - can’t diminish the fact that Judge Fisher has made history on the bench. He is the first and only person to serve on the appellate tax court since it’s creation in 1986, and he’s been a pivotal force in reshaping Indiana’s tax laws.

But after 24 years, he’s decided it’s time to hang up his robe. Judge Fisher announced Aug. 12 that he’ll retire at the end of the year, meaning the state will have to find a new appellate judge to preside over that unique court that is the only one in the state to have both a trial and appellate function.

Though Judge Fisher won retention in 2008, the 70-year-old judge is approaching the mandatory retirement age of 75 and he said this was the best time to move on.

“There was not any one thing,” he said. “It’s just an intangible feeling that makes you decide to go on to other things in life. I’m not so vain to think litigants can’t do better than me in getting a freshness for the court with fresh ideas and thinking.”

Fisher Judge Thomas G. Fisher

Judge Fisher was appointed July 1, 1986, by then-Gov. Robert Orr. Prior to that time, tax cases were heard at the Circuit or Superior level in either the county where the property was located or where a resident lived.

Before taking the bench, the Michigan native – who graduated in 1965 from what is now Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington – worked in private practice for a couple years with offices in Rensselaer and Remington. Gov. Roger Branigin in 1967 appointed him to be Jasper County prosecutor, a position that Fisher would hold for nearly two decades.

He’d chaired the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council and received the Eugene “Shine” Feller award. Aside from prosecutor, Fisher also served as attorney for the towns of Demotte and Remington and counsel for the Jasper County Economic Development Commission.

But when lawmakers decided to establish a state-level tax court, they looked to the longtime prosecutor to be the sole judge.

Greenwood attorney Bill Barrett at law firm Williams Barrett & Wilkowski said the state had a “patchwork” of taxation caselaw before that, and leaders wanted to provide one cohesive voice and path for tax cases to take.

“He’s taken very seriously that obligation as the sole pathfinder, laying out caselaw to serve as a guide for counsel and taxpayers in every area of tax law,” said Barrett, who clerked for Judge Fisher in the earl ’90s. “As the first judge, not only did he have to plow new ground, but there also wasn’t anyone in the wings when he was going through that process because we didn’t have someone who had a career directly and solely on that path.”

During the judge’s Tax Court tenure, the Indiana Supreme Court reported he’s decided about 800 cases that involve tax issues and whether the government correctly taxed a person or business. Most of the appeals involve decisions by the Indiana Board of Tax Review. The tax court also maintains a small-claims docket for processing refund claims less than $5,000 from the state Department of Revenue and Board of Tax Commissioner-assessed values less than $15,000 for any year. The court also has the ability to hear cases in Allen, Jefferson, Lake, St. Joseph, Vanderburgh, and Vigo counties.

Overall, the judge doesn’t prefer to place any more significance to one case than another. But he does recognize one property case that clearly stands out through the years: State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of St. John, 702 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind. 1998), in which the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Judge Fisher’s ruling from two years earlier in finding the state’s property tax assessment system unconstitutional and resulted in the fair-market value system.

“That’s the biggest case I’ve had and would probably be the signature case of my career,” he said. “The sheer magnitude of it is still being measured in the past several years, as assessors have been trying to comply with regulations put into place in response to St. John.”

However, Judge Fisher is proud of every case he’s handled through the years, like a first impression issue a couple years ago when he ruled a bank didn’t need to have a physical presence in the state to be subject to the Indiana Financial Institutions Tax. That’s a national issue he hopes the U.S. Supreme Court will consider at some point.

“I’ve tried to give citizens a good, consistent body of caselaw,” he said. “That’s important, to have that kind of body of law that offers guidance to both lawyers and the public about what our state tax laws say.”

When he started, Judge Fisher said property-tax cases outweighed other state court tax issues by 2-1, but the judge said that trend has completely reversed. He said one significant change has been that no evidence is debated on property-tax cases now since an administrative record-producing statute went into effect about a decade ago.

“Facts are rarely in dispute before me because the books say what they say,” he said. “The question is how the law applies to those numbers and data.”

Former Tax Court Clerk Martha Wentworth, who clerked in the court for two years and now serves as tax director of the Indiana-based multi-state group of Deloitte Tax, said that Judge Fisher has a national reputation for building a unified body of common taxation law in Indiana. He has upheld the balance of fairness between state tax administration and taxpayer rights, she said.

Indianapolis attorney Mark Richards in Ice Miller’s tax group agreed, saying that his practice beginning in 1985 has coincided with the tax court creation one year later and most of his practice has been before Judge Fisher.

“I wish him the best in his retirement, and he’s earned it, but this is a loss for the state of Indiana,” Richards said. “He’s always been a very fair and no-nonsense judge.”

The judge’s son, Indiana Solicitor General Thomas M. Fisher, said retirement is a big deal for his father, who’s taken so much pride in what he has done. Aside from being a significant influence in establishing state taxation caselaw, Judge Fisher has also had a monumental impact on the younger Fisher’s life in inspiring him to follow in those legal footsteps.

“Every kid thinks their dad is Superman, and I’m no exception,” he said. “Dad has been a pillar in every community he’s lived, and that was so inspirational as a kid, to see that impact on the community where we lived and then on the state as a whole. His professional, deep commitment to the rule of law was been clear to me as a kid, and that’s impacted my views of the world. I think this was a difficult decision and he was hesitant to move on, but that’s a period in life that comes for all of us.”

Though Judge Fisher said he hopes to stay on as a senior judge as needed, he doesn’t have any specific plans for his retirement. One possibility is increasing his involvement in civic activities, such as the Rotary Club that he joined in 1970 and most recently served as district governor for the 45 central Indiana clubs.

The Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission will interview applicants in the coming months for the vacancy, with first interviews Sept. 27 and semi-finalist interviews Oct. 27. An application deadline had not been set by IL deadline, but based on past appellate vacancy application deadlines the applications will likely be due by mid-September. The seven-member commission will choose three names to submit to Gov. Mitch Daniels, who makes the final choice.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT