Case law

Mary K. Fisher v. Carroll County Assessor

74 N.E.3d 582 · Indiana Tax Court · Apr 11, 2017

Fisher challenges the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review that established the assessed value of her real property for the 2012 and 2014 tax years. … 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

Convention Headquarters Hotels LLC v. Marion County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · May 24, 2024

To 10 The Indiana Constitution Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause 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 … That said, the property record cards presented as evidence 24 contradict Convention HQ’s claim because they clearly show that numerous changes were made before construction was completed. (See Exs. P-1 to P-61; Exs.

Roehl Transport, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

653 N.E.2d 539 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 10, 1995

Such a use is directly analogous to the 34 enumerated uses set forth in subsection (b) of Rule 45 IAC. 13-4-7 and qualifies Roehl for the “exemption” under 45 IAC. 13-4-7(d). … THE COMMERCE CLAUSE In 1977, the United States Supreme Court expressly rejected the view that interstate commerce is immune from state taxation. See Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v.

Enhanced Telecommunications Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

916 N.E.2d 313 · Indiana Tax Court · Nov 5, 2009

Because the distributions in this case are not legal settlements, they do not qualify as gross receipts pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-2.3-3-3. … Here, the distributions clearly do not meet the terms of this statute: they are not receipts received for maintenance services provided to a consumer that are directly related to the utility services of that consumer.

Gilday & Associates, P.C. v. Marion County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · May 20, 2024

J. at 11-13 with Hr’g Tr. at 55-58.) 5 Gilday claims its appeals were initiated under Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-15-12.1; yet, the Forms 130 clearly indicate that all four appeals were actually filed under Indiana Code Section … Gilday has provided no evidence to establish such a status.

Madison County Assessor v. Kohl's Indiana LP

Indiana Tax Court · Nov 17, 2025

These requirements, the Board concludes, are satisfied by “[a]n appraisal from a qualified appraiser” that is USPAP-compliant unless the appraisal is “shown to be inconsistent with the evidence or the requirements of the … satisfied the Board’s two-prong, per-se rule for establishing a prima facie case.

Madison County Assessor v. Kohl's Indiana LP

Indiana Tax Court · Aug 22, 2025

These requirements, the Board concludes, are satisfied by “[a]n appraisal from a qualified appraiser” that is USPAP- compliant unless the appraisal is “shown to be inconsistent with the evidence or the requirements of … The Board’s two-prong test for establishing a prima facie case results in the improper establishment of a per-se rule and is thus overly narrow. Appraisals, like books, cannot be judged by their covers.

BP Products North America Inc. v. Matonovich

842 N.E.2d 901 · Indiana Tax Court · Feb 21, 2006

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 … BP alleges that this evidence of underas-sessment in North Township, in conjunction with the parties' stipulation that BP's property was accurately assessed at 100% of its TTV, clearly "demonstrates that BP is entitled to

Componx, Inc. v. Indiana State Board of Tax Commissioners

741 N.E.2d 442 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 22, 2000

An established rule of statutory construction holds that where provisions of a statute conflict, the specific provision takes priority over the general provision. Robinson v. Wroblewski, 704 N.E.2d 467, 475 (Ind.1998). … Instructional Bulletin 92-1 utilizes Schedule C and the regulations clearly state that Schedule C “shows the cost of the interior and mechanical components included in the base rate (to facilitate deduction from the base

Tulsi Sawlani, M.D. v. Lake County Assessor

Indiana Tax Court · Jul 24, 2024

have 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 … CONST. art. 10, § 1(f) (requiring the legislature to establish the property tax caps “by law”).

Nova Tube Indiana II LLC v. Clark County Assessor

101 N.E.3d 887 · Indiana Tax Court · May 18, 2018

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 … Tax Ct. 2010) (providing that an abuse of discretion occurs when the Indiana Board either misinterprets the law or 8 acted clearly against the logic and effect of the facts

Ziegler v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

797 N.E.2d 881 · Indiana Tax Court · Oct 21, 2003

The legislature established a similar procedure for those persons who seek the refund of taxes on a class-wide basis. … The standard of review for alleged violations of the Indiana Constitution is well established: a statute is presumed constitutional until the party challenging its constitutionality clearly overcomes the presumption by a

Walker Manufacturing Co. Ex Rel. Conner v. Department of Local Government Finance

772 N.E.2d 1 · Indiana Tax Court · Jul 11, 2002

The record often fails to clearly distinguish between parcels 155 and 210. Consequently, the record is filled with considerable ambiguity. … Because parties are entitled to have their cases dealt with meaningfully, it is incumbent upon counsel io clearly present the facts. Whitley Products, Inc. v.

Graham Creek Farms v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

819 N.E.2d 151 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 13, 2004

Accordingly, Graham bears the burden of showing how the items it purchased clearly fall within the exemption statute. See Foursquare Tabernacle Church of God in Christ v. … Therefore, the backhoe does not qualify as exempt equipment and the repair part is taxable.

American United Life Insurance Co. v. Maley

803 N.E.2d 276 · Indiana Tax Court · Feb 13, 2004

may 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 … Furthermore, Cosaro's statements that the AUL building was "beautiful" and "made downtown" are merely conclusions and do not qualify as probative evidence. See Lacy Diversified Indus., Ltd. v.

Thorsness v. Porter County Assessor

24 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 discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … Indiana Code § 6—1.1—15—l(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.”

Marion County Assessor v. Washington Square Mall, LLC, DeBartolo Realty Partnership, LP, and Simon Capital, LP

46 N.E.3d 1 · Indiana Tax Court · Dec 30, 2015

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 … Conclusory statements do not qualify as probative evidence. See Whitley Prods., Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind.

Foursquare Tabernacle Church of God in Christ v. State Board of Tax Commissioners

550 N.E.2d 850 · Indiana Tax Court · Feb 20, 1990

Whether the Church qualifies for an exemption under IC 6-1.1-10-16(d). … 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 exemption to show that the property clearly falls within the

CVS Corporation v. Monroe County Assessor

83 N.E.3d 1286 · Indiana Tax Court · Sep 29, 2017

This Court’s precedent does not require the Indiana Board to choose one appraisal report’s opinion of value over another’s opinion of value, but instead allows valuations established by an appraisal report to be adjusted … Moreover, the Indiana Board abuses its discretion if its final determination is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances of the case before it or if it contrary to the law.

Clark County Assessor v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc.

Indiana Tax Court · Jun 5, 2024

DISCUSSION AND DECISION The dispute in this case centers around the income approach estimate prepared by Dillard’s appraiser to establish the value of its property. … A reviewing court may overturn a decision for lack of substantial evidence only if the agency’s conclusions are shown to be clearly erroneous in light of all of the evidence. Moriarity v. Indiana Dep’t Nat.