ILNews

Tax Court rules couple responsible for untimely filing of record

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court found it was a couple’s inaction – not the illness and death of a relative – that caused them to miss the deadline to file the certified administrative record with the court.

In Harsukh and Parul Bosamia v. Marion County Assessor, 49T10-1108-TA-53, Harsukh and Parul Bosamia appealed the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination that upheld their commercial real property assessments for the 2007 and 2008 tax years. The Bosamias, who initially represented themselves, initiated the tax appeal on Aug. 27, 2011. They paid a deposit to the board of tax review for a copy of the certified administrative record.

On Sept. 8, they received an invoice for the balance due and letting them know that the record was prepared. On Oct. 2, Harsukh Bosamia traveled to England after learning his mother was ill. Parul stayed in Indiana but did not pick up the record or pay the balance. The couple paid the balance due Oct. 21, traveled to England again, and returned Nov. 3 following the death of Harsukh Bosamia’s mother. The Bosamias did not file the record until they returned to the United States and also requested that they be allowed to untimely file it. The Marion County assessor moved to dismiss under Tax Court Rule 3(E) because of the untimely filing.

Judge Martha Wentworth granted the assessor’s motion, finding the Bosamias had several opportunities to file the record with the Tax Court within the designated time frame and received adequate notice that the record was ready. The Bosamias claimed that the notice they received was inadequate and didn’t trigger the 30-day filing period and that their failure to file should be excused under Trial Rule 6(B)(2) because of “excusable neglect” due to the death in the family.
 

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT