ILNews

Tax Court: tax rate recalculation incorrect

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court ruled that a government agency incorrectly calculated a Marion County school district’s capital project fund levy property tax rate for 2011, and it has ordered the Department of Local Government Finance to recalculate the tax rates going back to 2007.

In Metropolitan School District of Pike Township v. Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, No. 49T10-1103-TA-21, the Pike Township school district appealed the DLGF’s final determination recalculating the school district’s capital projects fund levy property tax rate for 2011. The DLGF notified the school district that it was reducing the estimated tax rate pursuant to the formula provided in Indiana Code 6-1.1-18-12. The school district challenged the rate reduction, but the DLGF issued a final determination certifying its previous order as final.

But Tax Judge Martha J. Wentworth reversed, finding the DLGF did not properly follow the law when it performed the steps outlined in I.C. 6-1.1-18-12. Based on DeKalb County. E. Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 930 N.E.2d 1257, 1260-61 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010), the DLGF should use a zero value in steps two and four of the formula when there is no increase in a school district’s assessed value from one year to the next, and it should also use a zero value in those steps when a school district’s assessed value actually decreases.

The DLGF applied DeKalb in its 2011 CPF levy property tax rate adjustment by using zeros in steps two and four of the statutory formula, but the school district contended that the DLGF should have gone back and recalculated the rates for 2007-2010 because CPF levy property tax rate calculations are affected by previous years’ rate calculations. Judge Wentworth agreed, rejecting the DLGF’s argument that it would be improper to recalculate the previous rates and that the Tax Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to order the DLGF to provide the retroactive recalculations.

"The School District does not ask the DLGF to recalculate the CPF levy property tax rate for years 2007 through 2010 using zero values instead of negative values in steps two and four to recover ‘lost’ funds from each of those years,” she wrote. “Rather, the School District simply seeks to correct those erroneous calculations for the sole purpose of ensuring the accuracy of its 2011 CPF levy property tax rate calculation, which is the subject of the final determination at issue, so that it may levy and collect the funds to which it is statutorily entitled.”

She remanded to the DLGF with instructions to recalculate the tax rates for 2007-2010 using zero values instead of negative values in steps two and four of the statutory formula.

 

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. 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!

  2. 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.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT