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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT