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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT