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

1166 INDIANA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 40:1103
705 them. P/S provided no proof that it did not receive the demand notices, only
706
a statement that it had not. After correcting a mathematical error in the
collection fees assessed to P/S, the Tax Court granted the DOR’s motion for
summary judgment. 707
708
11. 117 Republic, Ltd. Partnership v. Brown Township Assessor. —On
October 13, 2005, the taxpayer initiated an appeal of the BTR’s final
determination of the value of its real property on the March 1, 2003, assessment
709 date. This decision was on the taxpayer’s motion to have the case remanded
to the BTR so that the taxpayer could present additional evidence that it had
710
acquired after the administrative hearing. During the administrative hearing,
the taxpayer had claimed that the assessed value assigned to its property was
711
higher than its market value-in-use. To support its assertion, it offered proof
of the purchase price it paid for the property in 2003 and what that price would
712
have been in 1999, the valuation date. After the hearing in December 2004,
713
the taxpayer began to market the property for sale. As part of that process, it
714
had the property appraised in April 2005. The taxpayer did not request to
submit the appraisal to the Board as post-hearing evidence until August, nearly
715
nine months after the hearing. A few days later, the BTR denied the motion
to admit the appraisal and issued a final determination upholding the
716
assessment. The taxpayer filed an appeal claiming that the BTR had abused
its discretion by refusing to allow the appraisal as post-hearing evidence. 717
However, the BTR had a rule that will not allow post-hearing evidence unless the
BTR requests it and it is submitted before the deadline imposed by the
718
administrative law judge. The Tax Court found that the taxpayer could have
had the property appraised at any time, in fact had the appraisal for five months
before requesting its submission, and was told at the hearing that no post-hearing
719
evidence would be accepted. Therefore, the Tax Court held that it was not an
abuse of discretion for the BTR to refuse to hear the additional evidence and
denied the taxpayer’s motion for remand. 720
705. Id.
706. Id. at 1054-55.
707. Id. at 1055.
708. 851 N.E.2d 399 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006).
709. Id. at 400.
710. Id.
711. Id.
712. Id.
713. Id.
714. Id.
715. Id.
716. Id. at 400-01.
717. Id. at 401-02.
718. Id. at 402 (citing 52 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2-8-8(a) (2004)).
719. Id.
720. Id. at 403.