ILNews

Judge rejects petitioners’ requests to prevent tax collection

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Because petitioners seeking to enjoin the collection of tax filed their petitions before an original tax appeal was initiated, the Indiana Tax Court granted Marion County’s motions to dismiss.

Judge Martha Wentworth issued two orders Friday dealing with the same issue: the petitioners, before the Indiana Board of Tax Review had scheduled a hearing or ruled on the matters, filed their petitions asking the Tax Court to enjoin the collection of property taxes.

Washington Park Cemetery Association Inc. challenged the removal of an exemption previously applied to its Community Life Center, effective with the March 1, 2012, assessment. The entire complex had received an exemption from property taxes, including the life center. It was removed because special events, such as weddings, were sometimes held at the location.

West Ohio II LLC filed its petition asking the Tax Court to enjoin the collection of property taxes related to a disputed portion of its $39,314,000 assessment for March 1, 2013. West Ohio believed the property – a multi-tenant building and parking garage in Indianapolis – was substantially overvalued.

The same arguments were raised in both petitions, which involve the same attorneys on both cases: that the language “will raise” in I.C. 33-26-6-2(b)(1) allows for injunctive relief before an original tax appeal has been initiated; that the nature of preliminary injunctive relief typically seeks an order from the court before the full presentation of evidence and not after; and that the Tax Court should follow its holding in American Trucking Associations Inc. v. Indiana, 512 N.E.2d 920 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 1987).

But no relief can be granted because neither petitioner has filed an original tax appeal, Wentworth held. As such, the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the petitions. In both cases, she granted the motion to dismiss filed by the Marion County assessor, treasurer and auditor.

She noted in a footnote that the principle established in American Trucking regarding the Tax Court’s subject matter jurisdiction was ultimately challenged and disposed of in another case by an original action with the Indiana Supreme Court in 1990.

“Because the Supreme Court issued an alternative writ of prohibition in that case barring the Tax Court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction without stating its rationale or publishing the writ, the parties debated its precedential value in this case. Nonetheless, the Court need not determine the effect of the  Supreme Court’s writ because it now comes to the opposite opinion regarding subject matter jurisdiction than that in American Trucking,” she wrote.

The cases are Washington Park Cemetery Association, Inc. v. Marion County Assessor, Marion County Treasurer, and Marion County Auditor, 49T10-1404-TA-10, and West Ohio II, LLC v. Marion County Assessor, Marion County Treasurer, and Marion County Auditor, 49T10-1404-TA-9.

 

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