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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT