Case law

Kooshtard Property I, LLC v. Monroe County Assessor

38 N.E.3d 750 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 2, 2015

The Indiana Board has abused its discretion when its final determination is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or when it misinterprets the law. … Based on its review of the administrative record, the Court concludes that Kooshtard has not established that the Indiana Board’s final determination was not supported by substantial evidence.

Buckeye Hospitality Dupont, LLC, nka Sandpiper Fort Wayne LLC v. Stacey O'Day, in her official capacity as Allen County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Feb 28, 2020

final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of 4 discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Tax Ct. 1980) (providing that where it appears the Legislature amends a statute to express its original intention more clearly, the normal presumption that an amendment changes a statute’s meaning

Hometowne Associates, L.P. v. Maley

839 N.E.2d 269 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 16, 2005

may only reverse a final determination of the Indiana Board 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 Qualify for LIHTCs, a project must reserve a portion of its rental units for use by low-income households only, with rents on those units limited to a percentage of qualifying income.

Kentron, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

572 N.E.2d 1366 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 11, 1991

Clearly, Stanadyne is directly on point in the matter before the State Board. The Taxpayers are seeking exemptions that were not claimed on their returns for the years at issue. … The evidence clearly shows Kentron did not claim an exemption.

Spencer County Assessor and Grass Township Assessor v. AK Steel Corporation

61 N.E.3d 406 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 5, 2016

AK Steel bears an extremely high burden of proof on this claim, however, as that statutory language is presumed constitutional until clearly shown otherwise. See Sims v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. … That provision states that “[t]he General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.” IND.

Orange County Assessor v. Stout

996 N.E.2d 871 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 2, 2013

The State has asked, recommended [to] the counties if it is wooded ground that the [property owner] provide a forest management plan and/or a timber harvesting plan for it to qualify as agricultural property. … Areas containing a large manicured yard over and above the accepted one acre homesite would qualify for the [residential] excess” classification.

Hebron-Vision, LLC v. Porter County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Oct 28, 2019

Finally, Hebron-Vision maintains that the Indiana Board erred in concluding that it did not establish it qualified for a charitable purposes exemption during the years at issue because the totality of the evidence established … Clearly[, Hebron-Vision] is using shrewd business skills in selecting tenants.

Trump Indiana, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

790 N.E.2d 192 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 16, 2003

Tax Ct.2000) (holding that to qualify for the exemption, the movement, transportation, or carrying must be for consideration), review denied. … The Department, on the other hand, argues that the penalty is warranted because Trump failed to pay sales or use tax on items clearly subject to those taxes.

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

730 N.E.2d 240 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 16, 2000

Third, Mon-trust’s litigation has clearly benefited a large class: all Montana citizens interested in Montana’s public schools.... … The Indiana Tort Claims Act [ITCA], Ind.Code Ann, §§ 34-13-3-1 to 25 (West 1999), was enacted as a response to the Campbell opinion and "established extensive immunity provisions which shield governmental units from [tort

Madison County Assessor v. Kohl's Indiana LP

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 6, 2024

Challengers must demonstrate that the 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 … In essence, the agency’s decision “must provide a road map from which readers can clearly delineate the basis for [the] decision” based on the evidence.

Izaak Walton League of America v. Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals

881 N.E.2d 737 · Indiana Tax Court · Mar 4, 2008

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 … As a result, IWL asserts that it was clearly entitled to the exemption provided for in Indiana Code § 6-l.l-10-16(c)(3): 1) it was a nonprofit entity established for the purpose of retaining and preserving land and water

Monroe County Assessor v. SCP 2002 E19 LLC 6697, a/k/a CVS 6697-02

77 N.E.3d 270 · Indiana Tax Court · May 25, 2017

The Monroe County Assessor challenges the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final determination establishing the assessed value of SCP 2002 E19 LLC 6697’s, a/k/a CVS 6697-02, (“CVS”) real property for the 2007 through 2013 … “An abuse of discretion may occur if the Indiana Board’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and 6 circumstances before it, or if the Indiana Board

Evansville Courier Company Inc. v. Vanderburgh County Assessor

78 N.E.3d 746 · Indiana Tax Court · Jun 5, 2017

Additionally: in order to qualify for “abnormal obsolescence,” the obsolescence must be of a “non-recurring nature.” … Accordingly, the Court will reverse only if the Board’s decision is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, privilege, or immunity

Monarch Steel Co. v. State of Indiana Tax Commissioners

545 N.E.2d 1148 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 25, 1989

"A presumption is raised that the Legislature intended to change the law unless it clearly appears an amendment was made only to express more clearly the original intention of the Legislature." … If the taxpayer uses the allocation method, he shall keep records which adequately establish the validity of the allocation. IC 6-1.1-10-29.5 (emphasis added).

Blackbird Farms Apartments, LP v. Department of Local Government Finance

765 N.E.2d 711 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 2, 2002

Blackbird maintains that because the "assessed value [of a piece of land] is the raw price of land plus the cost of development, and using the comparable assessments presented, these figures clearly support a calculation … Tax Ct.1999) (indicating that mere references to photographs or State Board regulations, without explanation, will not qualify as probative evidence).

Anderson v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

758 N.E.2d 597 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 30, 2001

Supreme Court has rejected the view, however, that interstate commerce is immune from state taxation. Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U.S. 274, 288 , 97 S.Ct. 1076 , 51 L.Ed.2d 326 (1977), reh'g demied. … Clearly, then, the MCFT is a tax. See Roehl Transport, 653 N.E.2d at 546 . Cf. Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v.

Indiana Ass'n of Seventh-Day Adventists v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

512 N.E.2d 936 · Indiana Tax Court · Aug 17, 1987

The hearing officer recommended disapproval of the exemption for the parsonage duplex under IC 6-1.1-10-21 because a teaching minister was residing in the parsonage duplex at the time of the hearing, and thus did not qualify … It is well established that statutes exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed in favor of the tax, and the burden is upon the one claiming the exemption to show that the property clearly falls within

St. Mary's Medical Center of Evansville, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

534 N.E.2d 277 · Indiana Tax Court · Jan 27, 1989

Although the facts of Hotel Dieu are similar to the case at bar, the standard established for exemption in Louisiana is more lenient than the standard established in Indiana. … The Lodge clearly did not fall within the exemption statute. The court stated that “[t]he wording of the statute clearly did not apply to appellee’s situation.

Square 74 Associates LLC v. Marion County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 3, 2019

must 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 … Square 74 also relies on the provision regarding real estate taxes: [Square 74] shall pay and discharge, or cause the [qualified sublessees] to pay and discharge, as when the same become due

Fort Wayne National Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

621 N.E.2d 668 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 8, 1993

The FIT is a replacement tax, covering the same subject matter as previous taxes within the original GES, and existing in a long established format, i.e., a "measured by" tax, which also lay within the original GES. … Although an administrative agency may perform acts that fall within the meaning of "law" as the word is used in the Contract Clause, only those acts which are legislative in nature will qualify.