ILNews

Tax Court denies excess levy sought by IndyGo

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis’ public transit system lost a bid in the Indiana Tax Court to recover a budget shortfall that the Department of Local Government Finance ruled did not exist.

“On appeal, IndyGo argues that the DLGF’s final determination must be reversed because it is unlawful, not supported by the evidence, and an abuse of discretion. The Court disagrees,” Tax Court Judge Martha Blood Wentworth ruled in Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation v. Indiana Dept. of Local Government Finance, 49T10-0910-TA-76.

Indianapolis Public Transportation Corp. (IndyGo) argued that it had a budget shortfall of $344,478 for the 2006 budget year and $702,891 in 2007. DLGF argued that IndyGo didn’t have a shortfall for those years and denied requests for an excess property tax levy for both years.

Wentworth wrote that IndyGo bore the burden of demonstrating that the DLGF’s actions were contrary to law or an abuse of discretion. “Here, IndyGo has done neither. Rather, it has merely invited the Court to reweigh the evidence in its favor or to hold that the DLGF should have provided more, different, or better evidence” to support its rulings, Wentworth wrote.

“Based on the foregoing reasons, the DLGF’s final determination is affirmed.”

 

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT