ILNews

Judge upholds 2009 tax year exemption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court rejected the Hamilton County assessor’s claim that a for-profit limited liability company created to purchase office space for its nonprofit tissue donation company should not qualify for a charitable purposes exemption for the 2009 tax year.

New Life Generation Inc. was created in May 2008 as a nonprofit to procure tissue donations, perform donation recoveries, and provide related donor services. After New Life had trouble renting suitable space, its owners formed SPD, a LLC, to purchase an office building. It leased a portion of the building to New Life for a 10-year period. New Life paid rent in the amount of SPD’s mortgage, as well as all real and personal property taxes and other expenses.

SPD requested a charitable purposes exemption for the 2009 tax year, which the Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals denied. SPD appealed, and the Indiana Board of Tax Review granted the exemption.

In Hamilton County Assessor v. SPD Realty, LLC, 49T10-1104-TA-28, the assessor contended that the board’s final determination is contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence because New Life did not occupy and use the property for a charitable purpose;  SPD did not own the property for a charitable purpose; and the property was not  predominately used for charitable purposes. In its final determination, the IBTR explained that it found that New Life occupied and used the property for a charitable purpose because the parties did not appear to dispute the issue.

There is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that New Life occupied and used the property for a charitable purpose, Judge Martha Wentworth wrote, because the assessor did not challenge SPD’s claims regarding New Life’s charitable purpose or present evidence to the contrary. Instead, the assessor focused primarily on whether SPD had a charitable purpose.

The IBTR also determined that the totality of the evidence demonstrated that SPD owned the property for a charitable purpose. The totality of the evidence indicates that the arrangement between SPD and New Life was not a typical landlord-tenant relationship and that SPD did not have a profit motive, Wentworth wrote. The evidence of the close relationship between these two entities does support the finding that each has a similar charitable purpose. Wentworth declined to reweigh the evidence in the assessor’s favor.

Wentworth also rejected the assessor’s claim that the board incorrectly determined that SPD’s property was predominately used for charitable purposes. The language of I.C. 6-1.1-10-36.3(a) “clearly requires that a property be used or occupied for charitable purposes for more than 50% of the time that it is actually used or occupied during the tax year at issue. Here, the evidence shows that in the four months the property was used and occupied, it was used 100% of the time for the charitable purpose of operating a tissue bank,” she wrote.
 

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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT