Case law

Inland Container Corp. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

756 N.E.2d 1109 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 1, 2001

Thus, the amended statute limited who could qualify for the deduction. … Article 10, § 1 does not provide immunity to legislative policy judgments from judicial oversight, "but rather establishes mandatory minimum requirements for our system of property assessment and taxation." Boehm v.

Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals v. St. George Serbian Orthodox Church

905 N.E.2d 536 · Indiana Tax Court · May 7, 2009

George prima facie demonstrated that its cultural center qualified for the religious purposes exemption as provided in Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-16. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY St. … The Indiana Board determined that these documents prima facie established that the cultural center was used 63% of the time for a religious purpose. (Cert. Admin. R. at 134-35.)

Housing Partnerships, Inc. v. Owens

10 N.E.3d 1057 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 6, 2014

This case asks the Court to determine whether the Indiana Board of Tax Review erred when it held that for the 2006 tax year, Housing Partnerships, Inc. failed to show that its rental properties qualified for the charitable … In exchange for the governmental assistance, the corporation agreed both to rent its apartments to certain income-qualifying tenants and to charge budget-based rents. Id.

Gary II LLC v. Lake County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Mar 13, 2025

Court reverses a final determination of the Indiana Board only when it is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Moreover, because it is evidence that is sufficient to establish a given fact, it remains sufficient to establish that fact if it is not rebutted.

Indiana Department of State Revenue, Inheritance Tax Division v. Estate of Baldwin

652 N.E.2d 124 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 23, 1995

The Department maintains that Baldwin's transfer is clearly in contemplation of death. … The Medicaid program, established by Congress in 1965, provides medical assistance to persons who are unable to meet the expenses of health care. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.; Harris v.

Hamilton County Assessor v. SPD Realty, LLC

9 N.E.3d 773 · Indiana Tax Court · May 27, 2014

The Hamilton County Assessor appeals the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination that SPD Realty, LLC’s real and personal property qualified for a charitable purposes exemption for the 2009 tax year. … This language clearly requires that a property be used or occupied for charitable purposes for more than 50% of the time that it is actually used or occupied during the tax year at issue. See id.

Oaken Bucket Partners, LLC v. Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals

909 N.E.2d 1129 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 24, 2009

To be sure, the words "own, occupy, and use" restrict the activities that may be conducted on the property before an entity will qualify for an exemption. … Oaken Bucket therefore prima facie established that the Heartland space was predominately used for charitable/religious purposes.

St. Mary's Building Corporation v. Sarah E. Redman, Warrick County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Nov 21, 2019

qualified for a charitable purposes exemption under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-16(a). … But to read that case, as the Building Corporation has, as establishing a per se exemption that applies here misinterprets the case.

Tipton County Health Care Foundation, Inc. v. Tipton County Assessor

961 N.E.2d 1048 · Indiana Tax Court · Feb 16, 2012

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 … To meet its burden, the taxpayer must have made a prima facie case 2 at the Indiana Board hearing by submitting probative evidence 3 sufficient to show its property qualifies for exemption.

Larry G. Jones and Sharon F. Jones v. Jefferson County Assessor

51 N.E.3d 461 · Indiana Tax Court · May 4, 2016

On July 17, 2013, the Indiana Board issued a final determination finding that the parties’ evidentiary presentations had established that the Joneses’ residence was assessed as if it were 100% complete during the years … at issue when clearly it was not.

Osolo Township v. Elkhart Maple Lane Associates L.P.

789 N.E.2d 109 · Indiana Tax Court · May 30, 2003

will reverse a final determination of the Indiana Board only if it is: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of dis-eretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Even though the wooded areas clearly contribute to the appeal of the buildings, this fact alone does not render the land necessary support land....

Wittenberg Lutheran Village Endowment Corp. v. Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals

782 N.E.2d 483 · Indiana Tax Court · Jan 24, 2003

The sole issue for this Court to decide is whether the portion of Wittenberg's retirement community known as the "Villas" qualifies for a charitable exemption under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-16. … Qualified nurses [aides] or L.P.N.s are on staff to assist residents with their medications and provide other minor medical testing and assistance.

6787 Steelworkers Hall, Inc. v. Jon M. Snyder, Assessor of Porter County

71 N.E.3d 97 · Indiana Tax Court · Mar 3, 2017

demonstrate to the Court that the Indiana Board’s final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Indeed, Local 6787 has not shown that the Indiana Board abused its discretion, (i.e., it misinterpreted the law or issued a final determination clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before

Muir Woods Section One Assn., Inc., Muir Woods, Inc. Spruce Knoll Homeowners Assoc., Inc. and Oakmont Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Marion County Assessor, Joseph P. O'Connor

Indiana Tax Court · Aug 31, 2020

R. at 528 ¶ 16.) 4 contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; in excess of or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance … In any event, the opposing interpretations regarding the temporal application of the Exemption Statute clearly indicate that the HOAs’ claim was not proper for a Form 133.

Ovidiu Ciceu v. Knox County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Oct 24, 2025

A party cannot make an argument for the first time in his reply brief; this has long been established practice in Indiana’s reviewing courts. State v. Marion Cir. … Stated another way, the Board found that the Assessor’s assessor-appraiser certification did not qualify him as an expert in generally accepted appraisal principles.

Damon Corp. v. Indiana State Board of Tax Commissioners

738 N.E.2d 1102 · Indiana Tax Court · Nov 13, 2000

The plain language of I.C. § 6-1.1-9-4 clearly mandates that both subsections (a) and (b) apply only to assessments or increased assessments made under Chapter 9, which governs the assessment of omitted or undervalued tangible … Therefore, a prima fa-cie case has not been established that, based upon the difference between these numbers, obsolescence is present. B.

Lake County Assessor v. Amoco Sulfur Recovery Corp.

930 N.E.2d 1248 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 14, 2010

determination of the Indiana Board it is limited to determining whether 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 … BP's Returns, however, clearly demonstrate that while BP assigned different labels to this equipment, 10 its distinct cost and acquisition date data shows that it claimed an exemption on the same pieces of equipment during

Universal Health Realty v. William J. Fluty, Jr., in his official capacity as Vanderburgh County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Mar 10, 2020

with services establishment’s services and operations to the public. … Tr. at 7-11), is moot. 3 Under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-20.6-2.3, a facility can also qualify as a long term care property if it is either a “housing with services establishment” or an “independent living home.”

National Ass'n of Miniature Enthusiasts v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

671 N.E.2d 218 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 18, 1996

museum, library, workshops, local elubs, and houseparties are merely incidental to its recreational and hobby activities See Fort Wayne Sport Club, 147 Ind.App. at 140-41 , 258 N.E.2d at 882 (holding record insufficient to establish … "All portions of an affidavit which cannot be said to have been clearly based on personal knowledge must be stricken." Id.

Miller Structures, Inc. v. Indiana State Board of Tax Commissioners

748 N.E.2d 943 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 24, 2001

The Court must first determine whether Miller has established a prima facie case that it is entitled to a kit building adjustment. … None of these pieces of evidence clearly identifies which models were used and this Court will not make Miller's case for it by trying to figure out which ones were used. See CGC Emters. v.