ILNews

Panel names 3 Tax Court judge finalists

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After a morning of interviews with seven semi-finalists, the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission has recommended three names for the governor to consider in choosing the state’s next Tax Court judge.

Commission members deliberated for about 90 minutes before reaching a decision just before 2 p.m., choosing Bloomington attorney Joby Jerrells, Hendricks Superior 3 Judge Karen Love, and Martha Wentworth of Greenwood as finalists to recommend to Gov. Mitch Daniels. The others interviewed today were: George Angelone, Dan Carwile, Hon. Carol Comer, and Melony Sacopulos.

Four women and three men came before the commission for the 25-minute second round of interviews, with only one break in between each group. These followed an initial round on Sept. 27 with 14 applicants, and delved more in-depth into each person’s backgrounds and what they think about the Tax Court.



The commission had submitted a question to each semi-finalist, asking them to reflect on how the tax judge might contribute to the development of the state’s jurisprudence and to the improvement of the overall judiciary.

“All the candidates have experience that gives us the core competency and intellect, which is good news for this commission and the state,” said banking attorney Carwile from Evansville.

Most of the semi-finalists discussed public access and transparency and making sure the tax court has the most efficient operation, so that its cases move through as quickly as possible and the public understands what is happening. Some offered thoughts on issues they see facing the court in coming years, and ways their own backgrounds and experiences would be beneficial for the court and judiciary.

Jerrells, a second-career attorney admitted in 2003 who works both as a deputy prosecutor in the Attorney General’s Office and is also a self-employed attorney out of his home in Bloomington, talked about his experience in all types of law. If chosen, he’d be interested in trying to “refine, hone, and improve” the jurisprudence that has been created during the past quarter century. An electronic docket would be beneficial for that court’s efficiency, and he also said he’d want to make sure pro se litigants understood the process. Responding to a question about the structure of how appeals come from the Department of Revenue, Jerrells told members that the issue is “brewing” and that the discretion given by the Tax Court to those state agency decisions might need to be examined, possibly by a rule or statute. He also said timeliness should be examined and efficiency should be improved if necessary, particularly since there’s no “lazy judge” rule as exists for state trial courts.

As the only trial judge interviewed, Judge Love said the tax judge’s responsibility is to provide “timely and affordable justice for all” and that her experience on the bench since 1995 has prepared her for this role on the administrative and legal and judiciary sides. She hopes the tax court judge can help Indiana become a leader in tax law just like it is known nationally for jury reform.

In addition to her judicial career, she’s also practiced privately, worked as a certified accountant and through the years has helped draft the state’s Child Support Guidelines.

One commission member said that he was impressed with her writing, and Judge Love noted that she’s learned from the lawyers and other jurists throughout the state. “I’m a product of the legal profession, the judiciary in Indiana,” she said. “I want you to see what trial judges are like, and I want to make them proud.”

Wentworth echoed many of the aspects that her fellow semi-finalists pointed out, and noted that she’d spent time during the past month reading State of the Judiciary speeches to get an idea of how the Hoosier judiciary has progressed through the years. Now as tax director for the multi-state group Deloitte Tax LLP, Wentworth has previously served in roles that included clerking for the Tax Court in the early 1990s and has worked closely through the years with the state Department of Revenue. Her experience shows that she’s advocated for continuing education and professionalism and collegiality, she said.

Saying that judges must be careful in communicating with lawmakers, she said it would be appropriate to help the legislature understand what possible unintended consequences might result from state statute changes. Wentworth said the state faces so many intriguing and challenging legal questions on tax law, such as what is considered distortion on taxes, the amount of discretion the DOR has in allowing separate corporate entities to file separate or joint returns, and how the state agency can discretionarily change federal taxable income.

Now, with those three chosen as finalists, the commission will submit a report to the governor’s office and he’ll have 60 days to make a decision. Whoever is appointed will succeed Judge Thomas G. Fisher, who is retiring at year’s end after 24 years of service on the court that was first created in 1986.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT