ILNews

Tax Court affirms assessments of Shelbyville CVS store

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The assessment of a Shelbyville CVS store is lower than the county wanted, higher than the drugstore chain wanted, but just right, the Indiana Tax Court concluded.

The court issued an opinion affirming the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s determination upholding the assessment of the property at $2.375 million in 2007 and about $2.46 million for 2008.

After those assessments were made on the store built in 2001 and operated under a sale-leaseback agreement, CVS appealed first to the Shelby County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals and then to the Indiana Board of Tax Review, both of which affirmed the county’s original assessment.

CVS argued in those earlier appeals that based on the value of vacant former drugstore properties where market rent is about $10 per square foot, its Shelbyville store should be assessed at only about $1.25 million for the property tax years in question. But the Tax Review Board noted CVS failed to investigate and understand why those properties were vacant, which “destroyed” the credibility of its preferred method of assessment.

The Shelby County assessor then pursued its own alternate approach in its appeal to the Tax Court, Shelby County Assessor v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. #6637-02, 49T10-1112-TA-96. The assessor argued that based on the sale-leaseback’s contractual rent of $27.20 per square foot, the property should have been assessed at about $3.77 million.

“In its final determination, the Indiana Board explained that CVS provided probative evidence demonstrating that there was a significant difference between the subject property’s market rent and contractual rent,” Senior Judge Thomas Fisher wrote.

“The Indiana Board noted that this difference was consistent with CVS’s claim that it used sale-leaseback transactions to sell more than just the ownership rights in its properties; rather, it used those types of transactions as a means to generate additional business capital from investors,” Fisher wrote. “The Indiana Board found that the Assessor’s … approach likely was capturing more than the value of the real property (i.e., the “sticks and bricks”) in her computation.”

Fisher concluded in affirming the review board that the assessor essentially asked the Tax Court to reweigh the evidence, which it may not do.

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. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  2. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

  3. She must be a great lawyer

  4. Ind. Courts - "Illinois ranks 49th for how court system serves disadvantaged" What about Indiana? A story today from Dave Collins of the AP, here published in the Benton Illinois Evening News, begins: Illinois' court system had the third-worst score in the nation among state judiciaries in serving poor, disabled and other disadvantaged members of the public, according to new rankings. Illinois' "Justice Index" score of 34.5 out of 100, determined by the nonprofit National Center for Access to Justice, is based on how states serve people with disabilities and limited English proficiency, how much free legal help is available and how states help increasing numbers of people representing themselves in court, among other issues. Connecticut led all states with a score of 73.4 and was followed by Hawaii, Minnesota, New York and Delaware, respectively. Local courts in Washington, D.C., had the highest overall score at 80.9. At the bottom was Oklahoma at 23.7, followed by Kentucky, Illinois, South Dakota and Indiana. ILB: That puts Indiana at 46th worse. More from the story: Connecticut, Hawaii, Minnesota, Colorado, Tennessee and Maine had perfect 100 scores in serving people with disabilities, while Indiana, Georgia, Wyoming, Missouri and Idaho had the lowest scores. Those rankings were based on issues such as whether interpretation services are offered free to the deaf and hearing-impaired and whether there are laws or rules allowing service animals in courthouses. The index also reviewed how many civil legal aid lawyers were available to provide free legal help. Washington, D.C., had nearly nine civil legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty, the highest rate in the country. Texas had the lowest rate, 0.43 legal aid lawyers per 10,000 people in poverty. http://indianalawblog.com/archives/2014/11/ind_courts_illi_1.html

  5. A very thorough opinion by the federal court. The Rooker-Feldman analysis, in particular, helps clear up muddy water as to the entanglement issue. Looks like the Seventh Circuit is willing to let its district courts cruise much closer to the Indiana Supreme Court's shorelines than most thought likely, at least when the ADA on the docket. Some could argue that this case and Praekel, taken together, paint a rather unflattering picture of how the lower courts are being advised as to their duties under the ADA. A read of the DOJ amicus in Praekel seems to demonstrate a less-than-congenial view toward the higher echelons in the bureaucracy.

ADVERTISEMENT