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

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