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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1162 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40:1103 appeal. 646 Will’s Far-Go argued that the taxes were illegally assessed because personal property should be taxed in the location of its owner, unless it is permanently 647 located elsewhere. They argue that, because the inventory was awaiting transport to Fountain County, it should have been taxed there instead of being 648 taxed at its temporary location in Elkhart County. Will’s Far-Go also argued 649 that there is no time limit for filing a Form 133. However, the Tax Court 650 disagreed with Will’s Far-Go and upheld the reasoning of the BTR. Although it found that the statute and regulation that allow for correction of error was ambiguous about a time limit, the Tax Court looked to common law precedent and judicial rules of construction to give effect to the intent of the administrative 651 agency and to avoid unjust or absurd results. Generally, taxpayers who wish to challenge the legality of a tax pay the tax first, then file a Form 133 to challenge the assessment of the taxes and separately file a petition for a refund 652 of taxes. Will’s Far-Go did not pay the assessed taxes and was therefore not claiming a refund. However, the Tax Court refused to allow Will’s Far-Go to achieve the same result of being relieved of the burden of its tax assessment by 653 not paying the taxes up-front. To allow Will’s Far Go to challenge the legality of the assessed taxes for an infinite time because they did not pay the taxes before claiming a refund would penalize those taxpayers who do pay their 654 taxes. Will’s Far-Go also argued that they would be penalized because the 655 property had already been taxed in Fountain County. However, the Tax Court refused to allow Will’s Far-Go to just ignore the assessments from Elkhart 656 County. Will’s Far-Go had plenty of notice and time to challenge the 657 assessments but failed to do so in a timely manner. The Tax Court upheld the decision of the BTR that the Forms 133 were not timely filed. 658 659 8. Krol v. Indiana Board of Tax Review. —The Krols initiated an appeal of the 2002 assessment of their commercial real property in Lake County on 660 February 8, 2006. This decision was on a motion to dismiss for lack of 646. Id. 647. Id. at 1077 n.4. 648. Id. 649. Id. 650. Id. 651. Id. at 1077-78. 652. Id. at 1077. 653. Id. at 1078. 654. Id. 655. Id. at 1078 n.5. 656. Id. at 1078. 657. Id. 658. Id. at 1079. 659. 848 N.E.2d 1185 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). 660. Id. at 1186.
2007] TAX LAW 1163 661 jurisdiction filed by the BTR. The BTR claimed that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over this case because the Krols did not properly verify their petition 662 and did not name the proper respondent. The Tax Court confirmed that it did have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the claim challenged the assessment of property tax and is an initial appeal of a final determination of the 663 BTR. The BTR argued that the petition failed to name the DLGF as a 664 respondent as required by the Tax Court Rules. Although the caption of the petition did not name the DLGF as a respondent, the petition’s body and an attached copy of the final determination of the BTR both included the DLGF. 665 According to the Tax Court, that was “sufficient to identify the DLGF as a named respondent in accordance with the requirements of AOPA and Tax Court 666 Rule 4.” The BTR also argued that the petition was not properly verified 667 because it was verified by the Krols’ attorney and not by the petitioners. The 668 Supreme Court’s precedent provides that an attorney may verify a petition on behalf of a corporation and the Court of Appeals extended the same reasoning to 669 allow an attorney to verify a petition on behalf of an individual. The Tax Court followed the reasoning of those earlier decisions in deciding “that because the AOPA, the Tax Court Rules, and the Trial Rules do not preclude an attorney 670 from verifying a petition . . . the Krols’ petition was properly verified.” The Tax Court denied the motions to dismiss and required the parties to correct the caption to properly reflect the DLGF as the named respondent. 671 9. Miller Beach Investments, LLC v. Department of Local Government 672 Finance. —On February 24, 2006, Miller Beach initiated an appeal of four final determinations made by the BTR regarding assessments of its real property for 673 the tax year 2002. This decision was on a motion to dismiss for lack of 674 jurisdiction filed by the DLGF. The Tax Court first confirmed that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the appeals because the claims “challenge the 661. Id. 662. Id. 663. Id. at 1187. 664. Id. 665. Id. 666. Id. 667. Id. at 1188. 668. Id. at 1189 (citing Ind. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare v. Chair Lance Serv., Inc., 523 N.E.2d 1373, 1377 (Ind. 1988)). 669. Id. (citing Giles v. County Dep’t of Pub. Welfare of Marion County, 579 N.E.2d 653, 655 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)). 670. Id. 671. Id. at 1190. 672. 848 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). 673. Id. at 1192. At the time of the assessments, James Nowacki owned the 20 parcels that were the subject of the final determinations. He initiated the appeals, but had sold the properties to Miller Beach before the BTR conducted the hearings on the appeals. Id. at 1192 n.l. 674. Id. at 1193.
Page 1 and 2:
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN INDIANA TAXA
Page 3 and 4:
2007] TAX LAW 1105 at the end of mo
Page 5 and 6:
2007] TAX LAW 1107 24 personal and
Page 7 and 8:
2007] TAX LAW 1109 41 levy so that
Page 9 and 10: 2007] TAX LAW 1111 I.C. § 6-1.1-12
Page 11 and 12: 2007] TAX LAW 1113 86 to change a b
Page 13 and 14: 2007] TAX LAW 1115 I.C. § 36-7-30-
Page 15 and 16: 2007] TAX LAW 1117 1, 2006) to add
Page 17 and 18: 2007] TAX LAW 1119 a county auditor
Page 19 and 20: 2007] TAX LAW 1121 residential rent
Page 21 and 22: 2007] TAX LAW 1123 damages caused b
Page 23 and 24: 2007] TAX LAW 1125 219 sale or tran
Page 25 and 26: 2007] TAX LAW 1127 political subdiv
Page 27 and 28: 2007] TAX LAW 1129 by reorganizing
Page 29 and 30: 2007] TAX LAW 1131 D. Income Tax Be
Page 31 and 32: 2007] TAX LAW 1133 2006, the term
Page 33 and 34: 2007] TAX LAW 1135 324 325 uses the
Page 35 and 36: 2007] TAX LAW 1137 Interest accrues
Page 37 and 38: 2007] TAX LAW 1139 A county sheriff
Page 39 and 40: 2007] TAX LAW 1141 386 years 2006 a
Page 41 and 42: 2007] TAX LAW 1143 I.C. § 6-2.5-6-
Page 43 and 44: 2007] TAX LAW 1145 biodiesel and bl
Page 45 and 46: 2007] TAX LAW 1147 included in the
Page 47 and 48: 2007] TAX LAW 1149 A. Wayne County
Page 49 and 50: 2007] TAX LAW 1151 C. Bonney v. Ind
Page 51 and 52: 2007] TAX LAW 1153 523 named respon
Page 53 and 54: 2007] TAX LAW 1155 549 infrastructu
Page 55 and 56: 2007] TAX LAW 1157 presumption that
Page 57 and 58: 2007] TAX LAW 1159 603 the assessed
Page 59: 2007] TAX LAW 1161 631 they subject
Page 63 and 64: 2007] TAX LAW 1165 Beach’s attorn
Page 65 and 66: 2007] TAX LAW 1167 721 12. O’Donn
Page 67 and 68: 2007] TAX LAW 1169 752 spouse. The
Page 69 and 70: 2007] TAX LAW 1171 784 taxing abili
Page 71: 2007] TAX LAW 1173 814 adjusted gro
show all

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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?