ILNews

Tax return doesn't require attached appraisal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana code doesn't require an estate to file an appraisal with its inheritance tax return, the Indiana Tax Court decided in two opinions handed down Wednesday.

At issue in IndianaDept. of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division v. Estate of Doris K. Parker, deceased,  No. 49T10-0812-TA-72, and Ind. Dept. of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Div. v. The Estate of Marjean M. Ogle, No. 49T10-0906-TA-30, the Department of State Revenue appealed probate court determinations of inheritance tax liability. The department claimed the estates were required to file an appraisal by a licensed appraiser with their tax returns under Indiana Code Section 6-4.1-4-1.

In Parker, Doris Parker's estate filed its inheritance tax return reporting the fair market value of Parker's life estates, and the total fair market value of a family farm. That included nearly $70,000 in improvements Parker's daughter Willa Dean had made to the property. The estate didn't attach a formal appraisal to the return and the probate court held only the value of Parker's life estates were subject to the tax.

In Ogle, Marjean Ogle's estate attached an appraisal prepared by a local real estate broker.

I.C. Section 6-4.1-4-1 doesn't require an estate to get an appraisal valuing its assets at the fair market value, nor does it require an estate to file the appraisal with its inheritance tax return, concluded Judge Thomas Fisher. The judge disagreed with the department's claim that its regulation 45 IAC 4.1-4-3, which requires a formal appraisal by a licensed appraiser, should be enforced because it clarifies the statute. That regulation doesn't state that an estate must get and then submit the appraisal with its tax return.

"If the legislature had intended for the Estate to substantiate its own opinion as to the fair market value of its assets by attaching an appraisal to its return, it would have stated as much," he wrote in Parker.

Judge Fisher also ruled the probate court erred in holding that only the value of Parker's life estates were subject to the inheritance tax, and erred by deducting the monetary value of the improvements Willa Dean made to the farm while living there in computing the estate's tax liability. The judge remanded Parker for calculation of the proper amount of inheritance tax and interest.

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