04.02.2013 Views

Recent Developments in Indiana Taxation - I.U. School of Law ...

Recent Developments in Indiana Taxation - I.U. School of Law ...

Recent Developments in Indiana Taxation - I.U. School of Law ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

1158 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40:1103<br />

590<br />

property was assessed at a higher value than other property <strong>in</strong> the county. In<br />

its appeal to the SBTC, BP submitted a number <strong>of</strong> studies and reports that<br />

showed that property <strong>in</strong> Lake County was generally assessed at lower than fair<br />

market value while its property was assessed for more than its fair market<br />

591 value. BP requested that its assessment be reduced by application <strong>of</strong> an<br />

592<br />

equalization adjustment. The SBTC denied the petitions for two reasons:<br />

equalization was a remedy available “only to a group, or class, <strong>of</strong> taxpayers, and<br />

not to an <strong>in</strong>dividual taxpayer;” and, even if equalization were available to BP as<br />

an <strong>in</strong>dividual taxpayer, the studies and reports it provided were irrelevant<br />

because they used an <strong>in</strong>correct standard (fair market value) to measure<br />

593<br />

uniformity. While this case was pend<strong>in</strong>g before the Tax Court, the Supreme<br />

594<br />

Court issued its op<strong>in</strong>ion <strong>in</strong> DLGF v. Commonwealth Edison Co. <strong>of</strong> <strong>Indiana</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />

which it found “ample statutory authority allowed <strong>in</strong>dividual taxpayers to seek<br />

595<br />

[equalization] adjustments . . . .” In addition, the Supreme Court ruled that<br />

studies show<strong>in</strong>g disparities <strong>in</strong> fair market value to challenge assessments based<br />

on fair market value were irrelevant for assessments prior to 2002 because the<br />

596<br />

assessment system was based on a property’s “true tax value” (“TTV”). In<br />

light <strong>of</strong> this rul<strong>in</strong>g, the Tax Court requested additional briefs from the parties to<br />

determ<strong>in</strong>e if BP provided any evidence at the adm<strong>in</strong>istrative hear<strong>in</strong>g that could<br />

597<br />

support its claim for an equalization adjustment. BP admitted that its <strong>in</strong>itial<br />

case was founded on calculations and data that the Supreme Court later held to<br />

598<br />

be <strong>in</strong>valid. However, it had also submitted a study that compared the<br />

assessments made by local township assessors to those made for the same<br />

599<br />

properties by employees <strong>of</strong> the SBTC. That study found that residential real<br />

property <strong>in</strong> North Township was under-assessed by 38%, commercial real<br />

600<br />

property by 11%, and <strong>in</strong>dustrial real property by 8%. BP claimed that it was<br />

entitled to a 38% equalization reduction <strong>in</strong> the assessment on its property. 601<br />

However, the Tax Court referenced many prior decisions that made it clear that<br />

property could only be compared with similar property for purposes <strong>of</strong><br />

602<br />

determ<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g uniformity and equality <strong>in</strong> the tax burden on the property. The<br />

study that BP relied upon was solely concerned with the valuation <strong>of</strong> real<br />

property, while the evidence <strong>in</strong> BP’s 1999 assessment showed that over 80% <strong>of</strong><br />

590. Id. at 902 n.2.<br />

591. Id. at 903.<br />

592. Id.<br />

593. Id.<br />

594. 820 N.E.2d 1222 (Ind. 2005).<br />

595. Id. at 1226.<br />

596. BP, 842 N.E.2d at 903.<br />

597. Id.<br />

598. Id. at 904.<br />

599. Id. at 904-05.<br />

600. Id. at 905.<br />

601. Id. at 905 n.6.<br />

602. Id. at 905-06.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!