Repeal of administrative code abolishes 3-year limit for filing petitions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a ruling that it conceded could “open the floodgates,” the Indiana Tax Court found neither state statute nor regulations provided any time limits for homeowners to file petitions to correct error on their property tax assessments.

The Tax Court reviewed the Petition to Correct Error Statute contained in Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-12 and discovered provisions that gave taxpayers three years to claim a refund had been removed.

In Joseph and Jeanne Hutcherson v. Robin L. Ward, Hamilton County Assessor, 49T10-1302-TA-10, the Tax Court denied the assessor’s motion to dismiss and urged the state to include time limitations in the petition statute.

The Hutchersons filed four petitions to correct error for the 2004 through 2007 tax years after they learned they had not been given their homestead deduction. Both the Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and the Indiana Board of Tax Review denied the petitions because the documents were filed after the three-year limit.

On appeals before the Tax Court, the county assessor argued the Hutchersons failed to timely file their petitions under the Petition to Correct Error Statute and the Refund Statute, Indiana Code 6-1.1-26.1.

The Tax Court found that when 50 Indiana Administrative Code 4.2-3.12, which promulgated a regulation interpreting the petition statute, was repealed, the time limitation was deleted. And none of the new regulations adopted in 2000 or 2009 included a specific time period for filing a petition to correct error.

Although the Refund Statute does impose a three-year limitation period for filing a claim for a refund, the Tax Court declined to stretch that provision into the petition statute.
“The Court is well aware that this decision has the potential to open the floodgates for petition to correct error appeals by finding, as it must, that no statutory or regulatory time limitation exists after April 1, 2000,” Judge Martha Blood Wentworth wrote. “Moreover, the Court strongly supports the important public policy favoring limitations of claims. … The Court ardently urges the Legislature or the Department of Local Government Finance to act with all haste to provide security against stale claims arising under Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-12.”


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?