ILNews

Tax Court rules on inheritance tax valuation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court has rejected an estate’s attempt to sidestep trial rules by allowing verified tax returns to stand in for affidavits in determining a property’s fair market value.

The ruling came today in Estate of Christine L. Neterer, Deceased; Deborah Pollock and Marilyn Humbarger, Co-Personal Representatives v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, No. 49T10-1006-TA-26, an estate case in which Senior Judge Thomas Fisher ruled that the Indiana Department of Revenue has the ability to investigate any circumstances relating to inheritance tax enforcement and collection.

Deborah Pollock and Marilyn Humbarger served as personal representatives for the estate of their aunt Christine L. Neterer, who died in 2006 and shared one half interest in real property located in Elkhart County. An appraisal found the property had a fair market value of $855,250, and after a 30 percent discount and reduction by the county assessor, the estate’s inheritance tax liability was almost $31,938.

Shortly thereafter, the state department issued a notice indicating the property value and inheritance tax was higher because a life insurance policy had not been included in the return and the 30 percent discount wasn’t allowed. As a result, the estate was ordered to pay $13,279 more in inheritance tax.

The estate disagreed with the 30 percent discount disallowance, but eventually the estate paid the requested additional amount in full. More than a year later, the estate filed an administrative claim contending it was entitled to a refund of the additional tax amount it had paid. That led to a case in Elkhart Circuit’s Probate Court, and the trial judge ultimately found the state department didn’t improperly collect the taxes or disallow the discount under Indiana Code 6-4.1-3-13.

Specifically, the estate tried to use verified tax returns to prove the fair market value warranted the 30 percent discount, rather than supporting or opposing affidavits that are required under Indiana Trial 56(E). The probate court found that the estate didn’t supply those affidavits and so didn’t offer adequate evidence showing the need for the 30 percent discount.

Evidence submitted by the estate wasn’t compiled by experts, Fisher wrote, and it didn’t show the 30 percent discounted was warranted. Fisher affirmed the Probate Court’s summary judgment grant in favor of the state department.

 

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. 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."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT