Although the Indiana Tax Court had the opportunity to address an issue of first impression, it decided to save its analysis
of the issue for another day because the case could be resolved on other grounds.
The opportunity arose in Big Foot Stores LLC v. Franklin Township Assessor, et al., Nos. 49T10-0712-TA-74,
-75, -76, and -77. Big Foot appealed the Indiana Board of Tax Review's final determinations that upheld the 2003 interim
assessments of three of Big Foot's convenience stores and an office building in Grant County. The assessors believed the
properties were undervalued and reassessed them. As a result, the assessments on the properties jumped more than $200,000
each.
Tax Judge Thomas Fisher found the tax board didn't err when it determined the assessors' interim assessments were
authorized under Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-9-1.
Big Foot argued the assessments were improper because they were "sales chasing" or "spot assessments"
because Big Foot's stores were the only ones to be reassessed because they had been sold. Whether interim assessments
of two recently sold classes of property may be upheld when unsold properties of the same classifications and within the same
taxing jurisdiction were not reassessed is one of first impression in Indiana.
But instead of analyzing that issue, Judge Fisher resolved the appeal using established caselaw. The assessors
needed to provide some explanation as to how the June 19, 2002, and July 16, 2003, sales prices of Big Foot's properties
were related to their values as of Jan. 1, 1999, the appropriate valuation date for the 2003 tax year.
The assessors made no showing, so the tax board erred in upholding Big Foot's 2003 interim assessments because they were
based on market value-in-use evidence which had no probative value with respect to the appropriate valuation date, wrote Judge
Fisher.
He remanded it to the tax board so that it may instruct the appropriate assessing officials to reinstate the assessed values
assigned to Big Foot's properties during the 2002 tax year.














Never heard of remand to another state. How often does that happen?
I highly recommend Deanna and her team of professionals that serve the legal community. Great information and many thanks for sharing.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.