PETITIONERS APPEARING PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:

LARRY G. JONES GREGORY F. ZOELLER

SHARON F. JONES INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL

Hanover, IN JESSICA E. REAGAN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

Indianapolis, IN

______________________________________________________________________

IN THE

INDIANA TAX COURT

______________________________________________________________________

LARRY G. JONES and )

SHARON F. JONES, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

v. ) Cause No. 39T10-1308-TA-00068

) 

JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR, )

)

Respondent. )

______________________________________________________________________

ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF 

THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW 

FOR PUBLICATION

May 4, 2016

WENTWORTH, J.

Larry G. and Sharon F. Jones challenge the final determination of the Indiana 

Board of Tax Review that upheld the assessments of their real property for the 2008 

and 2009 tax years (“years at issue”). Upon review, the Court affirms the Indiana 

Board’s final determination.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Joneses own a single-family dwelling situated on approximately 100 acres of 

farmland in Hanover, Indiana. In 2008, their property was assessed at $501,400 
2

($105,900 for land and $395,500 for improvements), and in 2009, their assessment 

increased to $505,100 ($109,600 for land and $395,500 for improvements). (See Cert. 

Admin. R. at 73-74.)

In April of 2011, the Joneses contacted the Jefferson County Assessor to explain 

that these assessments were based on the same “critical” error – the assumption that 

their residence was 100% complete as of the assessment date when it was not. (See

Cert. Admin. R. at 137.) The Assessor subsequently inspected the exterior of the 

property, determined that the residence appeared to be occupied and complete, and 

referred the matter to the Jefferson County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals 

(PTABOA) for further action. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 68-69, 111-14, 137-40, 143-44.) 

On April 18, 2012, after conducting a hearing, the PTABOA denied the Joneses’ appeal. 

The Joneses subsequently appealed to the Indiana Board. 

On May 1, 2013, the Indiana Board held a hearing during which the Joneses did 

not contest their land valuation, but claimed that their residence should have been 

assigned an assessed value of $0 during the years at issue. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. 

at 2-3, 147, 151-52.) The Joneses presented a two-page document prepared by the 

former Trustee/Assessor of Hanover Township to support their claim. (See Cert. 

Admin. R. at 66-67, 130-31.) The Trustee/Assessor explained that litigation between 

the Joneses and the contractor building their house erupted in 2006, leaving the 

residence uninhabitable and only 50% complete. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 66-69.) The

Trustee/Assessor further stated that because the residence was still uninhabitable in 

2008, it should not have been assessed. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 67.) In addition, the

Trustee/Assessor surmised that someone may have mistakenly assumed that the 
3

residence was complete because the Joneses owned another property in the same 

neighborhood for which they had applied for a homestead deduction. (See Cert. Admin. 

R. at 66-67, 70-71.) 

In response, the Assessor asserted that the Trustee/Assessor’s document lacked 

probative value because it was not notarized and contained several unattributed 

handwritten alterations. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 144.) The Assessor also presented an 

Appraisal that valued the Joneses’ entire property at $500,000 as of January 11, 2011, 

despite the fact that the construction of their residence was only 74.5% complete as of 

that date. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 77-101, 134, 140-42.) Finally, the Assessor argued 

that because the Joneses received a homestead deduction in 2008, it was reasonable 

to conclude that they lived in the residence at that time. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 102-10, 

142-44.)

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. 

(See Cert. Admin. R. at 33-34 ¶ 28.) Nonetheless, the Indiana Board’s final 

determination found that the Joneses’ assessments must stand because their primary 

evidence, the Trustee/Assessor’s document, was unreliable and provided insufficient

support for their requested valuation of $0. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 31 ¶ 21, 34-35 ¶¶

29-31.)

On August 28, 2013, the Joneses initiated this original tax appeal. Thereafter, 

the Assessor unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the Joneses’ appeal on the basis that 

they failed to timely request and file the certified administrative record. See generally
4

Jones v. Jefferson Cnty. Assessor, 6 N.E.3d 1048 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014). On November 6, 

2014, the Court heard oral argument on the merits. Additional facts will be supplied as 

necessary.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination bears the 

burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Kildsig v. Warrick Cnty. Assessor, 998 N.E.2d 

764, 765 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013). The Court will reverse a final determination if it is 

arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; 

contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of or short of 

statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of the procedure 

required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence. IND. CODE § 33-26-

6-6(e)(1)-(5) (2016). 

LAW AND ANALYSIS

On appeal, the Joneses assert that the Indiana Board’s final determination must 

be reversed because any other outcome would sanction the Assessor’s failure to 

adequately investigate their claim and reversal would correct two clearly erroneous 

assessments.

1

 (See Pet’rs’ Reply Br. at 1-2; Oral Arg. Tr. at 7-8.) More specifically, the 

Joneses explain that because it is clear that their residence was incomplete and thus 

ineligible for assessment in 2008 and 2009, the Assessor should have corrected the

erroneous assessments by simply assigning their residence an assessed value of $0 

 

1

 The Joneses submitted to the Court a certificate of occupancy, paperwork regarding the 

delivery and storage of their personal effects, a permit for the installation of a septic system, and 

certain litigation paperwork, but conceded at oral argument that they did not submit any of these

documents to the Indiana Board. (See Pet’rs’ Reply Br. at 4-13; Oral Arg. Tr. at 4-5.) 

Accordingly, the Court may not consider them on appeal. See, e.g., North Park Cinemas, Inc. v. 

State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 689 N.E.2d 765, 768 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997) (declining to consider newly 

presented evidence).
5

and refunding the property taxes collected on their home for the years at issue. (See

Pet’rs’ Br. at 1-2; Oral Arg. Tr. at 6-9.)

The Joneses’ entire claim is based on their assumption that because the 

construction of their residence was incomplete during the 2008 and 2009 tax years, the

residence was ineligible for assessment during the years at issue and had no value. 

Indiana Code § 6-1.1-2-1, however, provides that “all tangible property which is within 

the jurisdiction of this state on the assessment date of a year is subject to assessment 

and taxation for that year.” IND. CODE § 6-1.1-2-1 (2008). Consequently, the Assessor 

was required to determine the true tax value (i.e., the market value-in-use)2 of the 

Joneses’ residence for the years at issue. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-31-6(c) (2008); 2002 

REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL (2004 Reprint) (Manual) (incorporated by 

reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.3-1-2 (2002 Supp.)) at 2 (providing that property is 

assessed based on its market value-in-use).¶ Accordingly, the focus of this case 

concerns the valuation of the Joneses’ property, not the correction of an error as the 

Joneses claim. 

Indiana has promulgated a series of guidelines that explain the property valuation 

process in detail. See REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR 2002--VERSION A

(2004 Reprint) (incorporated by reference at 50 I.A.C. 2.3-1-2), Bks. 1 & 2. When, as 

here, an assessor has assessed real property pursuant to the guidelines, her 

assessment is presumed accurate. Manual at 5. A taxpayer may rebut that 

presumption, however, with other market-based evidence (e.g., sales data, appraisals, 

 

2

 Market value-in-use is defined as the value of a property “for its current use, as reflected by 

the utility received by the owner or a similar user, from the property.” 2002 REAL PROPERTY 

ASSESSMENT MANUAL (2004 Reprint) (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.3-1-2 

(2002 Supp.)) at 2.
6

or actual construction costs) that indicates the assessment is not an accurate reflection 

of the property’s market value-in-use. See Manual at 5. The Joneses did not provide 

the Indiana Board with any market-based evidence of their property’s market value-inuse during their administrative hearing. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 63-71.) Consequently,

the Court has no market-based evidence to review and finds no basis for reversing the 

Indiana Board’s final determination.

CONCLUSION

For the above-stated reasons, the final determination of the Indiana Board is 

AFFIRMED.