ILNews

Tax Court denies assessor's motion to dismiss appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Tax Judge Martha Wentworth denied the Marion County assessor’s motion to dismiss two petitioners' original tax appeal, finding the parties properly served a copy of the petition with the attorney general’s office.

Jaklin Idris and Dariana Kamenova wanted to appeal the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination in which it upheld the 2006 assessment of Idris’ and Kamenova’s real property. Idris went to the Tax Court clerk’s office and provided the clerk with four copies of a notice of claim and two copies of a notice of appearance. The clerk’s office sent the information to the Board of Tax Review and the attorney general instead of Idris personally mailing or delivering them.

The Marion County assessor argues that Idris didn’t comply with Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-5(b)(2) and Tax Court Rule 16(C) because the clerk served a copy of the petition on the AG’s office but Idris was required to do so.

The plain language of I.C. 6-1.1-15-5(b)(2)(B) is silent as to how a party is to serve the attorney general. Wentworth interpreted the statute’s silence to mean that it does not matter how service is accomplished, as long as it is made.

Under Tax Court Rule 16, the attorney general must be served “by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested.” Wentworth wrote that the purpose of this rule is to ensure that there is evidence of service and receipt, and the evidence in the instant case shows that the assessor’s office and AG’s office both received and acknowledged the petition filed by Idris.

“Idris’s reliance on the Clerk as the means to effect service did not run afoul of statutory requirements for initiating an original tax appeal under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5 because that statute recites no preference for any particular method of service,” Wentworth wrote in Jaklin Idris and Dariana Kamenova v. Marion County Assessor, No. 49T10-1108-TA-49.

 “Moreover, while Idris’s method of service admittedly did not comply with Tax Court Rule 16(C), it was consistent with the spirit and purpose of the rule. Finally, the Court’s conclusion is consistent with its prior decisions that reasoned that the decisive inquiry for proper service is whether the documents to be served were timely mailed, not who mailed them.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Rules
    Private citizens are not bound by formalities of rules and standards as attorneys are!

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT