ILNews

Judge: Reformatted tax appeal untimely

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though a couple had originally filed their tax appeal within the 45-day deadline, the Indiana Tax Court still dismissed their appeal because their reformatted documents and notice of intent to appeal weren't filed until after the deadline.

In E.L. & B.L. Holsapple v. Monroe County Assessor, No. 49T10-0907, TA-33, the Holsapples wanted to appeal the final determination by the Indiana Board of Tax Review regarding the real property assessment of their duplex, pole barn, and one acre of land for the 2006 and 2007 tax years. The board issued its final determination May 8, 2009. The Holsapples, pro se, filed a handwritten petition to appeal with the clerk's office June 22. The petition was returned two days later for reformatting. The Holsapples resubmitted the documents July 3 and the clerk forwarded and mailed copies of the petition to the appropriate parties.

The Monroe County Assessor moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petition wasn't filed within 45 days. The Holsapples maintained the Tax Court should recognize the June 22 date as the date they filed and consider the reformatted petition to be an amendment to that filing. They believed the letter they received from the clerk requesting them to reformat their petition granted them a reasonable extension to file.

Even if Tax Court Judge Thomas Fisher assumed the reformatted petition relates back to June 22, the court still lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal because copies of the petitions weren't served nor was notice of intent to appeal filed with the Indiana Board of Tax Review within the deadline, he wrote. As such, he granted the assessor's motion to dismiss.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT