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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT