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

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT