ILNews

Man loses 2 appeals before Tax Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Carroll County man who owns agricultural property containing hog buildings couldn’t convince the Indiana Tax Court that the Indiana Board of Tax Review erred when it rejected four self-prepared analyses he offered as to what value his property should be assessed.

In two opinions handed down Tuesday, Vern R. Grabbe, pro se, appealed the 2009 assessment of his two contiguous parcels of land and the decision to apply the 2009 agricultural property assessment to the 2010 tax year.

For 2009, the property was assessed at $274,500. Grabbe thought that assessment was too high so he sought review. Before the Indiana Board of Tax Review, he presented four self-prepared analyses to show that the assessed value should be $218,262 – the allocation approach, the cost approach, the income approach, and the market data approach. The board determined all four approaches lacked probative value because he failed to show that his analyses comported with generally accepted appraisal principles, and it retained the $274,500 assessment value.

In Vern R. Grabbe v. Carroll County Assessor, Neda K. Duff, 49T10-1108-TA-51, Tax Judge Martha Blood Wentworth affirmed, finding the final determination upholding the 2009 assessment is supported by substantial and reliable evidence and is not contrary to law. Grabbe failed to present evidence that would support his assessment under the four approaches.

In Vern R. Grabbe v. Carroll County Assessor, Neda K. Duff, 49T10-1206-TA-35, Wentworth also affirmed the application of the 2009 assessment to the 2010 tax year. Initially, the property was assessed at $306,900 for the 2010 tax year, an 11 percent increase over the previous year’s assessment. Grabbe challenged the values and presented the same four self-prepared analyses to show that the value should be $218,862. The board issued a final determination, valuing the property the same amount as the 2009 assessed value.

Wentworth found that application reasonable given that neither of the parties presented probative evidence as to the subject property’s market value-in-use for the 2010 tax year. As such, the board’s decision is not contrary to law.
 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT