Case law

John E. Sparre v. St. Joseph County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Aug 22, 2024

The Court declines, however, to develop a due process argument on Sparre’s behalf when he has not clearly done so. See Ciceu v. Knox Cnty. Assessor, 232 N.E.3d 662, 665 (Ind. … CODE § 6-1.1-31-6 (2019) (establishing guidelines for the assessment of real property and clarifying that true tax value does not equate to fair market value).

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.

Thorsness v. Porter County Assessor

3 N.E.3d 49 · Indiana Tax Court · Jan 23, 2014

demonstrate to the Court that the Indiana Board's final determination 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 … Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1(p) clearly states that when an assessment increases by more than 5% from one year to the next, an assessor "has the burden of proving that the assessment is correct."

Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

891 N.E.2d 187 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 28, 2008

The issue in this case is whether, during the period at issue, Home Depot qualified for this deduction. … The Court notes, however, that Home Depot’s designated evidence does not clearly establish this proposition. (Cf. Pet’r Designated Evid.

Marion County Assessor v. Square 74 Associates, LLC

Indiana Tax Court · Feb 14, 2024

The Assessor’s burden for overturning the Indiana Board’s decision on appeal is well established. … He must show that the decision “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before [the Indiana Board.]” Kooshtard Prop. I, LLC v. Monroe Cnty. Assessor, 38 N.E.3d 750, 753 (Ind.

Marion County Assessor v. Square 74 Associates, LLC

Indiana Tax Court · Feb 14, 2024

The Assessor’s burden for overturning the Indiana Board’s decision on appeal is well established. … He must show that the decision “is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before [the Indiana Board.]” Kooshtard Prop. I, LLC v. Monroe Cnty. Assessor, 38 N.E.3d 750, 753 (Ind.

Thomas & Nancy Crandall v. Bartholomew County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Sep 30, 2024

The Court granted their request, established a supplemental briefing schedule, and held oral argument. … The Court examined whether the Legislature’s intent was clearly apparent based on the text of HEA 1260 and concluded that it was.

Tell City Boatworks, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

Indiana Tax Court · Dec 18, 2020

qualified research. … (CCH) 354, 2014 WL 4920724, at *17-19 (T.C. 2014) (finding that a taxpayer’s systematic modeling and testing of schematics to address uncertainties established a qualified process of experimentation

Chris Bougie v. Kosciusko County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Sep 18, 2024

has been prejudiced by a final determination of the Indiana Board that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity … A reviewing court may overturn a decision for lack of substantial evidence only if the agency’s conclusions are shown to be clearly erroneous given all the evidence. Moriarity v. Indiana Dep’t Nat.

Caylor-Nickel Clinic, P.C. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

569 N.E.2d 765 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 4, 1991

Caylor-Nickel asserts (1) the plain language of IC 6-2.1-3-24.5 requires nothing more than to meet the terms of IC 6-2.1-3-24.5(a), (b), *769 and (c) to qualify for exemption, (2) the legislature specifically qualified the … Consequently, a taxpayer failing to meet this burden, not qualifying for exemption, is subject to assessment.

Marion County Assessor v. Simon DeBartolo Group, LP, DeBartolo Realty Partnership, LP, and SPG Lafayette Square, LLC

52 N.E.3d 65 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 8, 2016

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 … I mean that clearly shows to me a decline as well as the overall rents.

Plainfield Elks Lodge No. 2186 v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

733 N.E.2d 32 · Indiana Tax Court · Aug 2, 2000

The State Board argues that the Elks’ monetary contributions, as well as the organization’s other donations, are not enough to qualify it for the exemption. … The statute clearly states that a building’s exempt status turns on whether its property is used for the above-mentioned purposes the majority of the time. See Ind.Code Ann. § 6-1.1-10-36.3(a).

Chevrolet of Columbus, Inc v. Bartholomew County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Mar 19, 2024

s final determination is arbitrary, 3 capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity … To show an abuse of discretion, Chevrolet must show the Indiana Board’s decision is “clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it or that it has misinterpreted the law.”

Miles, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

659 N.E.2d 1158 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 20, 1995

In determining the true intent behind I.C. 4-6-2-11, the Court notes that the legislature has clearly defined the roles of the Department and the attorney-general in the tax collection process. … Therefore, Miles' discount coupons do not qualify for the resale exemption in I.C. 6-2.5-5-8.

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

914 N.E.2d 868 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 30, 2009

On July 29, 2009, this Court issued an opinion in the above-captioned case holding that a portion of Oaken Bucket Partners, LLC's (hereinafter, "Oaken Bucket") real property qualified for a charitable/religious purposes exemption … In this case, the totality of the evidence established that Oaken Bucket possessed its own charitable purpose and that its property was both occupied and predominately used for religious purposes. See Id. at 1134-38 .

Convention Headquarters Hotels LLC v. Marion County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Sep 3, 2026

Counts IV and V alleged violations of the Property Taxation Clause and the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution. (Pet. Jud. Rev. at 11–13.) … Indiana Tax Court Rule 1 provides that the Rules of Trial Procedure apply in this Court except to the extent that those rules are clearly inconsistent with the Tax Court Rules. Ind. Tax Ct. R. 1.

Garrett LLC v. Noble County Assessor

112 N.E.3d 1168 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 24, 2018

The Indiana Board stated that Garrett “failed to establish the property was exposed to the market for a reasonable time.” (See Cert. Admin. … Even though the transaction was not a market value sale, the Indiana Board noted that it was possible that this transaction could still qualify as a reliable indicator of the property’s 2016 market value-in-use.

Wendy H Elwood Trust v. Bartholomew County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Aug 7, 2023

As recognized by the Indiana Board, however, there is no bright-line test or finite objective standard to establish when the customary or regular practice in a taxpayer’s trade or business involves holding land in inventory … R. at 139 ¶ 23 (stating that the fact-sensitive determination is “a far cry from the type of ‘simple true or false finding of fact’ that qualify an issue as objective” (citation omitted)).)

Muir Woods Section One Assn., Inc. v. Marion County Assessosr

Indiana Tax Court · Feb 18, 2025

Here, the jurisdictional question falls under a different statutory grant of authority, and determining whether the Motion to Vacate qualifies as a petition for rehearing is essential to establishing jurisdiction. … See Christianson, 486 U.S. at 817-18 (recognizing that clearly erroneous jurisdictional rulings justify revising prior decisions); Stewart v. Kingsley Terrace Church of Christ, Inc., 767 N.E.2d 542, 545-46 (Ind. Ct.

Uniden America Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

718 N.E.2d 821 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 6, 1999

Further, “[i]t is a well established rule of statutory construction that words and phrases shall be given their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning.” Koufos v. … Finally, “[t]o authorize a collection of gross income tax, a transaction must come clearly within the relevant statutory provisions.