ILNews

Warrick County man’s land correctly classified as residential excess acreage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Warrick County man fighting the 2009 tax year assessment of his land received only a partial victory in the Indiana Tax Court Tuesday. The validity of his 2009 assessment will stand.

Douglas G. Kildsig owned 12.648 acres in the county, which included his residence, two pole barns, a lake and 11 acres of woods. The property was assessed at $192,000. Kildsig appealed, claiming because the 2009 assessment was 5 percent higher than his 2008 assessment, the assessor had to establish the validity of this 2009 assessment under I.C. 6-1.1-15-1(p). He also argued his assessment was incorrect because the 11 acres were improperly classified as residential excess acreage rather than agricultural land. He claimed he grew trees on the land to use as firewood to heat his residence, and his neighbor’s adjacent land was classified as agricultural.

The Indiana Board of Tax Review held that the burden-shifting rule at issue didn’t apply to its proceedings and that the land was properly classified. Tax Judge Martha Wentworth reversed with respect to the burden-shifting rule determination, noting a recent decision that the rule applies throughout the entire appeals process, not just the initial proceedings.

Wentworth also held in Douglas G. Kildsig v. Warrick County Assessor, 82T10-1101-TA-2, that substantial evidence presented by the assessor supports the classification of residential excess acreage for the 2009 tax year. She claimed because Kildsig hunted in the wooded area and used its timber to heat his home, he used the land for recreational and residential purposes. Also, the adjacent land was used by his neighbor as part of an income-producing farm. Finally, she pointed out that Kildsig’s land had been incorrectly classified as agricultural land for years and she informed him several years before the 2009 assessment that his land, and other area properties that were misclassified, would be switched to the correct classifications at the same time.   
 

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. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. 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."

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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT