ILNews

Judge affirms assessment of theater

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court affirmed the 2006 assessment of a Marion movie theater, finding the Grant County assessor is essentially asking the court to reweigh the evidence, which it cannot do.

The Grant County assessor appealed the determination by the Indiana Board of Tax Review that the 2006 assessment for Kerasotes Showplace Theatres’ Grant County location is $4.2 million. Kerasotes had the theater built, and several years later the company sold the Marion property and sixteen others in the Midwest in a portfolio transaction. Kerasotes agreed to lease back the properties it sold to Crest Net Lease Inc. and paid $17.70 per square foot for the Marion property.

Originally, the 2006 assessment was $7,821,000. Kerasotes appealed to the Board of Tax Review. Both Kerasotes and the Grant County assessor presented appraisals that greatly varied in their value. Kerasotes’ appraisal determined that the market value-in-use of the subject property was $4.2 million. In arriving at that value, Kerasotes’ appraiser gave the subject property’s allocated sales price and contract rent little weight. He used the market rent of $11 per square foot instead of the actual contract rent of $17.70. The assessor’s appraisal estimated the market value-in-use of the property at $7.45 million, relying heavily on the allocated sales price and contractual rent.

The issue presented to the Indiana Board of Tax Review to decide was whether, under Indiana’s market value-in-use standard, the subject property should be valued according to the terms of its lease – such as the contract rent – or according to what other similar properties would garner in rent – the market rent. The Board of Tax Review based its conclusion on the fact that the evidence did show that the theater’s contract rent was significantly higher than the industry’s market standard. It also found that the evidence didn’t show how Crest Net actually came up with the allocated sale price. It found Kerasotes’ appraisal to be more probative as to the theater’s market value-in-use than the assessor’s appraisal.

The Grant County assessor argued that because a property’s market-in-value use reflects the “ask price by its owner,” Kerasotes wouldn’t have taken less for the sale of its property than the price equal to the utility it gained, which was the $7,821,835 sale price.

In Grant County Assessor v. Kerasotes Showplace Theatres, LLC, No. 49T10-0908-TA-47, Senior Tax Judge Thomas Fisher found the assessor’s argument to miss the mark.

The tax board relied on a Wisconsin Supreme Court case for its decision because it couldn’t find any Indiana cases to provide guidance. That Wisconsin case found that under the income approach, leased properties were to be valued in accordance with market rents despite the fact that their contract rents were much higher.

Fisher agreed with the tax board’s decision and noted that the Grant County assessor has essentially asked the Tax Court to reweigh the evidence.
 

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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT