ILNews

New Tax Court judge 'honored and humbled' by appointment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A longtime lawyer and tax specialist received an early Christmas gift this week, learning that she’ll be the state’s newest Tax Court judge and the first woman to hold a seat on that bench.

Gov. Mitch Daniels announced on Wednesday that he has selected Martha B. Wentworth as the second-ever Indiana Tax Court judge, succeeding Judge Thomas G. Fisher when he retires Jan. 1. The governor chose Wentworth over two other finalists selected by the Judicial Nominating Commission in late October: Bloomington attorney Joby Jerrells and Hendricks Superior Judge Karen Love.

Wentworth, 62, becomes the second person to hold that position, as Judge Fisher was chosen when the state created the appellate tax court in 1986. She’ll hold that position for two years until voters decide whether to retain her. If retained, she will serve a 10-year term.

“I am just truly honored, and this is pretty wondrous,” she said after the governor’s office announced her appointment. Wentworth received a call from the governor on Dec. 20 notifiying her of the appointment.

"This is a pinnacle for someone who loves state taxation, and I'm just honored and humbled to be following in the footsteps of Judge Fisher," she said. "The personal joy I have is incalculable, and really the enormity of this, personally and professionally, is still sinking in. This is really a wonderful new adventure."

Daniels credited her “decades-deep knowledge” of tax law and a strong reputation for fairness and consistency as reasons for choosing Wentworth, and he said she’d fill the role "superbly."

Before beginning her legal career, Wentworth owned her own businesses in the 1970s and 1980s. She worked as a self-employed franchisee owner and owned residential rental property before enrolling in law school in the mid-1980s in what is now Indiana University Maurer School of Law.

Graduating cum laude in the top 40 percent of her class and admitted to practice in 1990, Wentworth started her legal career clerking for Judge Fisher from 1990 to 1992 and then went to work for six years as a tax attorney at the Indianapolis firm of Hall Render Killian Heath & Lyman. Though she was about to become a partner at the firm, Wentworth took a risk and left in 1998 to begin working at multistate accounting firm Deloitte Tax LLP in Indianapolis, where she has served as a senior tax manager, level 1 firm tax director and level 2 tax director.

Though she has not actively practiced law in her position at Deloitte, Wentworth remained active in organizations such as the Indiana State Bar Association’s Tax Section and taught tax law in various capacities through the years. She’s also taught graduate level classes in state and local taxes at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business since 2000.

During her interviews with the Judicial Nominating Commission, Wentworth said the state faces many intriguing and challenging legal questions on tax law, such as what is considered distortion on taxes, the amount of discretion the Department of Revenue has in allowing separate corporate entities to file separate or joint returns, and how the state agency can discretionarily change federal taxable income.

She said jobs are the most important issue for the state, especially in this economic climate, and tax law creates certainty for businesses that are trying to figure out what they can pay and who they can hire. The court must help shape a dynamic environment to encourage economic growth and job creation, she said.

Wentworth will start her new position Jan. 1, after she spends the holiday overseas with family. One of the biggest things she’ll have to get used to is being referred to as, “Your honor,” she said with a laugh.

“My goal is to maintain the tax court as a forum where devotion to the rule of law, fairness to all litigants, and professional civility are the benchmarks,” she said.

A robing ceremony will be held in early 2011, but no date has been set.

 

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. 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