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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT