ILNews

Tax Court in Bloomington March 17

IL Staff
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Tax Court hits the road March 17 to hear arguments in a case regarding how to properly value a Meijer store for property tax purposes. The arguments will be held at 3:30 p.m. in the Moot Courtroom at Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington.

In Meijer Stores Limited Partnership v. Betty Smith, Wayne Township Assessor, Michael Statzer, Wayne County Assessor, et al., No. 49T10-0609-TA-89, Meijer and Wayne County don't see eye-to-eye on the assessed value of land owned by Meijer in Richmond.

The local assessing officials provided evidence to the Wayne County Property Tax and Assessment Board of Appeals they complied with all applicable rules in performing the assessment and Meijer provided a professional appraisal of how much the property would sell for if it were on the market today.

The Wayne County Property Tax and Assessment Board of Appeals decided the current comparable sale price wasn't the appropriate measure of value because the property isn't currently on the market, but did accept a portion of the appraisal to show the property's depreciated value. It rejected the portion of the appraisal that further decreased the value to reflect the market for empty "big box" stores.

It's up to the Tax Court to decide whether the assessor's approach, Meijer's approach, or the Property Tax and Assessment Board's approach is correct.
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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!!

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT