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 ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
2007] TAX LAW 1163<br />
661<br />
jurisdiction filed by the BTR. The BTR claimed that the Tax Court lacked<br />
jurisdiction over this case because the Krols did not properly verify their petition<br />
662<br />
and did not name the proper respondent. The Tax Court confirmed that it did<br />
have subject matter jurisdiction over the case because the claim challenged the<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> property tax and is an <strong>in</strong>itial appeal <strong>of</strong> a f<strong>in</strong>al determ<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
663 BTR. The BTR argued that the petition failed to name the DLGF as a<br />
664<br />
respondent as required by the Tax Court Rules. Although the caption <strong>of</strong> the<br />
petition did not name the DLGF as a respondent, the petition’s body and an<br />
attached copy <strong>of</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>al determ<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>of</strong> the BTR both <strong>in</strong>cluded the DLGF. 665<br />
Accord<strong>in</strong>g to the Tax Court, that was “sufficient to identify the DLGF as a<br />
named respondent <strong>in</strong> accordance with the requirements <strong>of</strong> AOPA and Tax Court<br />
666 Rule 4.” The BTR also argued that the petition was not properly verified<br />
667<br />
because it was verified by the Krols’ attorney and not by the petitioners. The<br />
668<br />
Supreme Court’s precedent provides that an attorney may verify a petition on<br />
behalf <strong>of</strong> a corporation and the Court <strong>of</strong> Appeals extended the same reason<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
669<br />
allow an attorney to verify a petition on behalf <strong>of</strong> an <strong>in</strong>dividual. The Tax<br />
Court followed the reason<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> those earlier decisions <strong>in</strong> decid<strong>in</strong>g “that because<br />
the AOPA, the Tax Court Rules, and the Trial Rules do not preclude an attorney<br />
670<br />
from verify<strong>in</strong>g a petition . . . the Krols’ petition was properly verified.” The<br />
Tax Court denied the motions to dismiss and required the parties to correct the<br />
caption to properly reflect the DLGF as the named respondent. 671<br />
9. Miller Beach Investments, LLC v. Department <strong>of</strong> Local Government<br />
672 F<strong>in</strong>ance. —On February 24, 2006, Miller Beach <strong>in</strong>itiated an appeal <strong>of</strong> four f<strong>in</strong>al<br />
determ<strong>in</strong>ations made by the BTR regard<strong>in</strong>g assessments <strong>of</strong> its real property for<br />
673<br />
the tax year 2002. This decision was on a motion to dismiss for lack <strong>of</strong><br />
674<br />
jurisdiction filed by the DLGF. The Tax Court first confirmed that it had<br />
subject matter jurisdiction over the appeals because the claims “challenge the<br />
661. Id.<br />
662. Id.<br />
663. Id. at 1187.<br />
664. Id.<br />
665. Id.<br />
666. Id.<br />
667. Id. at 1188.<br />
668. Id. at 1189 (cit<strong>in</strong>g Ind. Dep’t <strong>of</strong> Pub. Welfare v. Chair Lance Serv., Inc., 523 N.E.2d<br />
1373, 1377 (Ind. 1988)).<br />
669. Id. (cit<strong>in</strong>g Giles v. County Dep’t <strong>of</strong> Pub. Welfare <strong>of</strong> Marion County, 579 N.E.2d 653, 655<br />
(Ind. Ct. App. 1991)).<br />
670. Id.<br />
671. Id. at 1190.<br />
672. 848 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006).<br />
673. Id. at 1192. At the time <strong>of</strong> the assessments, James Nowacki owned the 20 parcels that<br />
were the subject <strong>of</strong> the f<strong>in</strong>al determ<strong>in</strong>ations. He <strong>in</strong>itiated the appeals, but had sold the properties<br />
to Miller Beach before the BTR conducted the hear<strong>in</strong>gs on the appeals. Id. at 1192 n.l.<br />
674. Id. at 1193.