Case law

Marion County Assessor v. Stutz Business Center, LLC

Indiana Tax Court · Aug 30, 2019

On June 27, 2018, the Assessor served Stutz with his written discovery requests that, among other things, sought to determine whether Stutz’s property had been appraised to qualify for mortgages and to obtain copies of … The Court subsequently denied Stutz’s motion to dismiss and established a briefing schedule. See id. at 245. The Court heard the parties’ oral arguments on April 25, 2019.

Fraternal Order of Eagles Lodge No. 255 v. Indiana State Board of Tax Commissioners

512 N.E.2d 491 · Indiana Tax Court · Feb 19, 1987

Hence the burden is on the Petitioner to establish that it is entitled to an exemption. … The court decided the case on other grounds, but added that the doctrine was clearly applicable on the basis of the ruling, which constituted an administrative interpretation, followed by a long period of acquiescence by

Majestic Star Casino, LLC v. Blumenburg

817 N.E.2d 322 · Indiana Tax Court · Nov 12, 2004

will reverse a final determination of the Indiana Board only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Any matter admitted under this rule is conclusively established unless the court on motion permits withdrawal or amendment of the admission....

General Motors Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

578 N.E.2d 399 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 11, 1991

The court's sole concern, however, is whether GM's manufacture of finished automobiles qualifies as one continuous integrated production process for the purpose of exemption from sales/use tax. … Clearly, GM asks only for simple interest on the total money the Department wrongfully held.

Linda D Donovan v. Clark County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 22, 2025

“An abuse of discretion may occur if the Indiana Board’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, or if the Indiana Board misinterprets the law.” … More fundamentally, the Donovans did not establish that they selected sales of comparable units when accounting for all value- affecting characteristics.

Griffin v. Department of Local Government Finance

765 N.E.2d 716 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 3, 2002

HCI Program The HCI program, first enacted in 1986 and later recodified in 1992, was enacted to provide cost-free emergency medical care to indigent patients who did not qualify for *720 Medicaid. … Every statute comes before the Court clothed with the presumption of constitutionality until clearly overcome by a contrary showing. Id.

Brian J. Shapiro v. Hamilton County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Mar 27, 2024

The version of Subsection F effective for the 2017 assessment date states: If an individual who is receiving the deduction provided by this section or who otherwise qualifies property for a deduction … But just as clearly, the definitions are distinct and do not overlap, indicating that they do not have the same or identical meaning.

Clark v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

694 N.E.2d 1230 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 24, 1998

However, the fact that a decision is committed to the State Board’s subjective judgment does not. mean that the decision is immune from judicial review. See Corey v. … The evidence in this case clearly demonstrated that the greater part of the “basement” was full of apartments and constructed similarly to the upper floors.

May Department Stores Co. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

749 N.E.2d 651 · Indiana Tax Court · May 7, 2001

Associated’s gains did not qualify as business income under the transactional test. Cf. … Therefore, the gains from the sale of Horne’s assets did not qualify as business income under the functional test.

Lakeview Country Club, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

565 N.E.2d 392 · Indiana Tax Court · Jan 22, 1991

“No law is more firmly established than this, that no tax shall be assessed which is not authorized by statute.” Sluder v. Mahan (1954), 124 Ind.App. 661, 671 , 121 N.E.2d 137, 141 . … Furthermore, the State Board claims the county board’s actions qualified as a review of a current year’s assessment or a review of an “assessment made with respect to the last preceding assessment date” under IC 6-1.1-13-

Paul J. Elmer and Carol A. N. Elmer v. Indiana Department of Revenue

42 N.E.3d 185 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 1, 2015

See also Filip, 879 N.E.2d at 1081 (explaining that a party’s designation of evidence may appear in its brief so long as the party clearly identifies the listed materials as designated evidence). … To qualify for a business expense deduction, an item must (1) be paid or incurred during the taxable year, (2) be for carrying on any trade or business, (3) be an expense, (4) be an ordinary expense, and (5) be a necessary

Area Interstate Trucking, Inc. v. Indiana Department of Revenue

605 N.E.2d 272 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 29, 1992

Petitioners operate motor vehicle equipment that qualifies as ‘commercial motor vehicles’ subject to the motor carrier fuel tax, and[] because those commercial motor vehicles consume fuel in their operation upon Indiana highways … Moreover, “[t]he burden is on the challenger to clearly demonstrate the statute’s invalidity, and all doubts are resolved in favor of the statute.” Id.

Town of St. John v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

690 N.E.2d 370 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 22, 1997

As the Supreme Court explained, “Article X, section 1 does not immunize legislative policy judgments from judicial oversight, but rather establishes mandatory minimum requirements for our system of property assessment and … Additionally, the Supreme Court stated that Article X, Section 1 does not “immunize legislative policy judgments from judicial oversight, but rather establishes mandatory minimum requirements for our system of property assessment

Associated Ins. Cos. v. DEPT. OF ST. REV

655 N.E.2d 1271 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 29, 1995

The language which the Department cites does not clearly indicate that the legislature intended to depart from its "single taxpayer" policy. … Const. § 47.33 (5th Ed.1992) ("[Referential and qualifying words and phrases, where no contrary intention appears, refer solely to the last antecedent.")

Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

722 N.E.2d 926 · Indiana Tax Court · Jan 31, 2000

The land order clearly intended to describe this street as it runs between Allisonville Road and Keystone Avenue. … The evidence indicates that the land valuation commission clearly placed the parcels within the 82nd Street Corridor area. (Trial Tr. at 69.)

Southlake Indiana LLC v. Lake County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 8, 2020

to the Court that the Indiana Board’s final determination in this matter is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Finally, Southlake maintains that the Indiana Board failed to meaningfully address its comparable assessment analysis that clearly demonstrated that the Mall was overassessed. (See Oral Arg.