ILNews

State says goodbye to its first tax judge

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Retiring Indiana Tax Court Judge Thomas G. Fisher received a warm goodbye at a send-off ceremony Dec. 17, as the state recognized the solid and nationally recognized body of caselaw that Indiana’s first appellate tax judge created during his 24 years on the bench.

As of Indiana Lawyer deadline, the governor had not named who will succeed Judge Fisher on the state’s appellate bench, but the three finalists vying for that spot attended the ceremony honoring what the judge has done for Indiana since the Tax Court’s creation in 1986.


fisher-1col Retiring Tax Court Judge Thomas G. Fisher received gifts, including a caricature from his son and daughter that says “Court is Adjourned.” (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“As Indiana’s first and only tax court judge, you’ve blazed a trail in what had been uncharted legal territory,” said the Tax Court’s staff attorney Erika Aker.

Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard said his colleague has done more than any other person on the appellate bench with decisions such as the landmark Town of St. John ruling in 1999 that led to a restructuring of the Indiana property tax system. In a time when President Barack Obama and Congress have recently debated and forged tax policy, Judge Fisher’s impact can be seen through the predictability and certainty in tax law he’s created for Indiana’s economy.

“We’d hoped to get thoughtful and predictable tax law that would benefit us all,” the chief justice said, referring to when the new court was created. “Tom’s splendid service has made that dream and hope a reality. Tom Fisher did more than any other single person to bring predictability and fairness to that (tax) system.”

Showing his sense of humor, Judge Fisher ended the ceremony by revealing what judges wear when issuing their decisions in court. He ducked down behind the bench briefly, then drew laughter and applause as he reappeared wearing a British-style white wig and holding a large arm-length gavel.

He plans to retire and become a senior judge as soon as the governor names his successor – either Bloomington attorney Joby Jerrells, Greenwood attorney Martha Wentworth, or Hendricks Superior Judge Karen Love.•

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. @ President Snow, like they really read these comments or have the GUTS to show what is the right thing to do. They are just worrying about planning the next retirement party, the others JUST DO NOT CARE about what is right. Its the Good Ol'Boys - they do not care about the rights of the mother or child, they just care about their next vote, which, from what I gather, the mother left the state of Indiana because of the domestic violence that was going on through out the marriage, the father had three restraining orders on him from three different women, but yet, the COA judges sent a strong message, go ahead men put your women in place, do what you have to do, you have our backs... I just wish the REAL truth could be told about this situation... Please pray for this child and mother that God will some how make things right and send a miracle from above.

  2. I hear you.... Us Christians are the minority. The LGBTs groups have more rights than the Christians..... How come when we express our faith openly in public we are prosecuted? This justice system do not want to seem "bias" but yet forgets who have voted them into office.

  3. Perhaps the lady chief justice, or lady appellate court chief judge, or one of the many female federal court judges in Ind could lead this discussion of gender disparity? THINK WITH ME .... any real examples of race or gender bias reported on this ezine? But think about ADA cases ... hmmmm ... could it be that the ISC actually needs to tighten its ADA function instead? Let's ask me or Attorney Straw. And how about religion? Remember it, it used to be right up there with race, and actually more protected than gender. Used to be. Patrick J Buchanan observes: " After World War II, our judicial dictatorship began a purge of public manifestations of the “Christian nation” Harry Truman said we were. In 2009, Barack Obama retorted, “We do not consider ourselves to be a Christian nation.” Secularism had been enthroned as our established religion, with only the most feeble of protests." http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/is-secession-a-solution-to-cultural-war/#q3yVdhxDVMMxiCmy.99 I could link to any of my supreme court filings here, but have done that more than enough. My case is an exclamation mark on what PJB writes. BUT not in ISC, where the progressives obsess on race and gender .... despite a lack of predicate acts in the past decade. Interested in reading more on this subject? Search for "Florida" on this ezine.

  4. Great questions to six jurists. The legislature should open a probe to investigate possible government corruption. Cj rush has shown courage as has justice Steven David. Who stands with them?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT