Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 1 of 20

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER

Joshua C. Neal

William A. Ramsey

Barrett McNagny LLP

Fort Wayne, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Winston Lin

Jessica R. Gastineau

Deputy Attorneys General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

INDIANA TAX COURT

Evansville Courier

Company Inc.,

Petitioner,

v.

Vanderburgh County Assessor,

Respondent

June 5, 2017

Tax Court Case No.

02T10-1611-TA-55

On Appeal from a Final 

Determination of The Indiana 

Board of Tax Review

Baker, Special Judge.
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 2 of 20

[1] Evansville Courier Company, Inc. (Evansville Courier), seeks judicial review of

the decision of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (the Board) denying 

Evansville Courier’s claimed tax deductions for the abnormal obsolescence of a 

printing press and related equipment. The Court finds that the Board 

improperly admitted an untimely-disclosed exhibit offered by the Vanderburgh 

County Assessor (the County) and that the Board did not err by finding that 

Evansville Courier did not make a prima facie case of abnormal obsolescence. 

We find that the Board erred by admitting the untimely exhibit. We also find, 

however, that the Board did not err by denying Evansville Courier’s petition, 

and affirm the Board’s judgment.

Facts1

[2] Evansville Courier is a daily newspaper publisher located in Evansville. Its 

primary paper, the Evansville Courier & Press, is published seven days per week. 

Over the last decade or so, Evansville Courier has experienced the downturn of 

the newspaper industry. In 2004, it employed approximately 500 people; 

currently, it employs approximately 215 people. In 2011, on average, it sold 

49,126 newspapers from Monday through Saturday, with an average Sunday 

circulation of 70,864 newspapers. By 2014, the average circulation decreased to 

39,999 newspapers during the week and to 57,111 on Sundays. It has 

 

1 The Court held oral argument in this case in Fort Wayne on May 31, 2017. We thank Judge Surbeck and 

his staff for their warm hospitality, and we thank counsel for both parties for their excellent written and oral 

presentations.
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 3 of 20

experienced an overall decline of nearly 60% in circulation since the 1990s. 

Evansville Courier anticipates that it will soon reduce the number of publication 

days for the Evansville Courier & Press and that at some point in the next ten 

years, it will stop printing newspapers altogether.

[3] In 1989, Evansville Courier purchased a new 12-position flexographic printer 

(the Printing Press). At that time, the flexographic method of printing was 

expected to become the predominant method of printing newspapers, but 

within a few years, it became apparent that the industry preferred using an 

offset press rather than a flexographic press. At one time, there were as many 

as thirty newspaper companies nationwide using flexographic press printers, but 

now only twelve remain in use. The flexographic method of printing is more 

expensive than the alternative offset method. Additionally, Evansville Courier 

can no longer buy parts for the Printing Press from the manufacturer, meaning 

that it must have parts specially manufactured or purchase used parts from 

newspaper companies that once operated similar presses.

[4] In July 2011, Evansville Courier filed its 2011 tax return. The 2011 Return 

included a separate schedule applying an abnormal obsolescence deduction to 

the Printing Press and related equipment. Evansville Courier filed similar 

returns for each of the 2013 and 2014 tax years. In sum, Evansville Courier 

requested the following approximate abnormal obsolescence adjustments: 

$649,398 for 2011; $3.5 million for 2013; and $5.1 million for 2014. The 

abnormal obsolescence adjustments were disallowed by Vanderburgh County

for each of the three years.
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 4 of 20

[5] The parties went through the required administrative process for each of the 

three tax returns.

 In March 2011, the Vanderburgh County Assessor had assessed the value 

of Evansville Courier’s personal property, including the Printing Press 

and related equipment, to be approximately $8.6 million. Appellant’s 

App. p. 4. Evansville Courier appealed that determination to the 

Vanderburgh County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (the 

Vanderburgh County Board). Following an October 7, 2011, hearing, 

the Vanderburgh County Board affirmed the assessment of Evansville 

Courier’s personal property value to be approximately $8.6 million. Id.

at 7-8. On December 5, 2011, Evansville Courier filed a petition with the 

Board seeking a review of the Vanderburgh County Board’s decision, 

asking that its property be valued at approximately $7.4 million. Id. at 1-

3.

 In March 2013, the Vanderburgh County Assessor assessed the value of 

Evansville Courier’s personal property to be approximately $8.57 

million. Id. at 31. Evansville Courier appealed that determination to the 

Vanderburgh County Board, which, following a September 23, 2013, 

hearing, affirmed the assessment of the personal property value to be 

approximately $8.57 million. Id. at 35. On November 8, 2013, 

Evansville Courier filed a petition with the Board seeking a review of the 

Vanderburgh County Board’s decision, asking that its property be valued 

at approximately $5 million. Id. at 22-24.

 In March 2014, the Vanderburgh County Assessor assessed the value of 

Evansville Courier’s personal property to be approximately $7.6 million. 

Id. at 49. Evansville Courier appealed that determination to the 

Vanderburgh County Board, which, following a January 9, 2015, 

hearing, affirmed the assessor’s valuation. Id. at 48. On March 30, 2015, 

Evansville Courier filed a petition with the Board seeking a review of the 

Vanderburgh County Board’s decision, asking that its property be valued 

at approximately $2.5 million. Id. at 42-44.
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 5 of 20

On January 26, 2016, the Board held a combined evidentiary hearing on each 

of Evansville Courier’s three pending petitions.

[6] At the hearing, Evansville Courier submitted appraisals prepared by Brad 

Venisnik, an Accredited Senior Appraiser, in support of its claim for an 

abnormal obsolescence deduction for the Printing Press and related equipment 

for the years of 2011, 2013, and 2014. The appraisals were prepared in 

accordance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 

Venisnik considered the cost, income, and market approaches to value. He 

relied most heavily on the market approach because that approach “most 

accurately quantifies all forms of depreciation and obsolescence.” Id. at 505. 

Venisnik researched the market by talking with the original equipment 

manufacturer, used equipment dealers, and other operators of two presses that 

are similar to the Printing Press. 

[7] Venisnik’s research indicated that (a) the original equipment manufacturer 

would attach a value of $865,000 to the Printing Press for the 2011 tax year; 

(b) no used equipment dealer had any interest in purchasing the Printing Press 

or any indications of recent comparable sales; and (c) other newspaper 

companies have discontinued operations of their flexographic presses and have 

sold the component parts for their scrap value. Venisnik concluded that it 

would be impractical to use the Printing Press for anything other than printing 

newspapers and that it lacks functionality for its best use because of an inherent 

inability to print color copy on both sides of the page. He therefore determined 

that it is not possible to cure the causes of the Printing Press’s obsolescence.
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 6 of 20

[8] Based on his research, Venisnik placed a value on the Printing Press and related 

equipment for 2011 of $1.2 million. He calculated abnormal obsolescence by 

using a mathematical computation equal to the difference between the 

reportable value of the Printing Press and its equipment and the appraised 

value. For 2011, the amount of abnormal obsolescence was approximately $4.3 

million. For 2013 and 2014, the appraised value of the Printing Press and 

related equipment was $820,000 and $632,000, respectively. Thus, the amount 

of abnormal obsolescence for each of these years was approximately $4.44 

million for 2013 and $4.47 million for 2014.

[9] As part of its case-in-chief, Vanderburgh County called Bill Fluty, the County 

assessor, to testify. During Fluty’s testimony, the County offered into evidence 

an evaluation of Venisnik’s market value appraisal of the property in 2014. 

Evansville Courier objected to this exhibit because it had not been provided to 

Evansville Courier five days before the hearing as required by the Indiana 

Administrative Code and because it was hearsay evidence. The County 

responded that the exhibit was rebuttal testimony and therefore did not have to 

comply with the five-day timeline. The Board took the issue under advisement 

and completed the hearing.

[10] On September 19, 2016, the Board issued its final determination, which denied 

Evansville Courier’s petitions. In relevant part, the Board found and held as 

follows:

16. [With respect to the exhibit that was not timely disclosed 

by the County,] [w]hile the Board’s procedural rules do not 
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 7 of 20

specifically exempt rebuttal evidence from the exchange 

requirements, the Board does recognize a general exception for 

rebuttal evidence. . . . The Board may exclude evidence offered 

as rebuttal that should have been presented in the party’s case-inchief, but is not required to do so. Here, the Board is willing to 

make an exception because the exhibit was specifically offered to 

challenge the validity of the Petitioner’s appraisals. . . . Hence, 

the Petitioner’s objection is overruled as it pertains to the prehearing disclosure requirement.

***

18. Respondent’s Exhibit 4 is hearsay, and the Respondent 

failed to point to any recognized hearsay exception. However, it 

does nothing to either prove or disprove the property’s market 

value-in-use. As such, the exhibit is admitted. Because the 

Petitioner objected to the exhibit, it cannot serve as the sole basis 

for the Board’s decision. The Board notes however, the decision 

to allow Respondent’s Exhibit 4 does not affect the final 

determination.

***

72. Here, the Petitioner is making a claim of “abnormal 

obsolescence.” The argument was made that “unforeseen 

changes in market value have caused the subject property to 

suffer from abnormal obsolescence.” These alleged unforeseen 

changes include increased competition from various news 

sources, widespread access to the internet, the delivery of news 

through various social media outlets, and online advertising that 

negatively affects advertising revenue.

73. The Petitioner’s press is 25 years old. It is reasonable to 

conclude that significant technological changes can, and will, 

occur over that time span. Examples of such changes include the 
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 8 of 20

virtual disappearance of items such as Beta videocassette 

recorders, cassette audiotapes, and typewriters. The invention of 

a newer, more productive piece of equipment capable of 

producing a better quality item does not necessarily mean an 

older, currently utilized item should be considered abnormally 

obsolete. 

74. No argument was made that the subject property is not 

capable of, or is not currently, performing the very task for which 

it was purchased. In fact, the press is still utilized daily. Further, 

just because other forms of “media” have become more 

prevalent, that does not necessarily qualify the items for 

“abnormal obsolescence.” As the Board has previously held, 

common events in the nature of business, such as increased 

competition, do not amount to abnormal obsolescence. 

75. Additionally: in order to qualify for “abnormal 

obsolescence,” the obsolescence must be of a “non-recurring 

nature.” The Board has heard previous appeals that offer 

guidance on the issue of “non-recurring nature.” See Jofco, Inc. v. 

Bainbridge Township Ass’r, et al, Pet. No. 19-018-04-1-7-00006 

(Ind. Bd. Tax Rev. December 28, 2005); and Kimball Int’1, Inc. v. 

Bainbridge Twp. Ass ’r, Pet. Nos.19-018-04-1-7-00007, 19-018-04-1-

7-00008, and 19-018-04-1-7-00009 (Ind. Bd. Tax Rev. December 

30, 2005); see also Ind. Code § 4.2-9-3(a).

76. The petitioners in Jofco and Kimball engaged in business 

dealings in New York and Washington. Both suffered a 

substantial decline in business, roughly 35% to 40%, following 

the “unexpected and unforeseen” terrorist attacks that occurred 

on September 11, 2001, in New York City and elsewhere. The 

Board agreed that, based upon a fact sensitive inquiry, the 

Petitioners qualified for an “abnormal obsolescence” deduction. 

Here, the Petitioner failed to point to a single, specific, nonrecurring triggering event that would justify a determination of 

“abnormal obsolescence.” Further, the Petitioner failed to 
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 9 of 20

present any evidence its losses were remotely comparable to 

those suffered by the Petitioners in Jofco and Kimball.

77. The Petitioner failed to show that the property under 

appeal suffered from “abnormal obsolescence.” . . . 

78. Even if the Board were to find the subject property has 

some degree of “abnormal obsolescence” the claim would still 

fail. The Petitioner’s appraiser failed to provide sufficient 

probative evidence that the cause for “abnormal obsolescence” 

resulted in a quantifiable loss in value. Instead of utilizing the 

appropriate method of calculating the assessment, the Petitioner’s 

appraiser chose to use the “market approach.” Methods of 

assessing personal property are substantially different from those 

used to assess real property, as previously explained. Further, 

even if Mr. Venisnik’s approach to value had been appropriate, 

his appraisal does not provide a reliable market value for the 

property under appeal.

79. The sales comparison approach, or as Mr. Venisnik 

referred to it “the market approach,” requires gathering sufficient 

data on recently sold assets that are similar to the subject

property, analyzing the value characteristics of those comparable 

assets, comparing the characteristics to those of the subject 

property and making appropriate adjustments for differences. It 

is difficult to see how Mr. Venisnik could have appropriately 

utilized this methodology when, according to his own testimony, 

there is “not an active market for the flexographic press.” Mr. 

Venisnik was unable to cite any “actual sale” of a flexographic

press. Instead, he relied on “conversations” with the original 

equipment manufacturer, used equipment dealers, and other 

operators of flexographic presses. No probative evidence was 

presented that would persuade the Board that these individuals 

are able to establish a reliable value for a flexographic printing 

press. Further, Mr. Venisnik failed to show that “conversations” 
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 10 of 20

regarding “opinions” of value followed generally accepted

appraisal practices.

80. With regard to the Petitioner’s argument stating it was 

“negatively impacted” by the decision to purchase a flexographic 

press rather than an offset press, this argument falls short. 

Presumably, a reasonably prudent purchaser of a multi-million 

dollar piece of equipment would be aware of the risks in 

purchasing equipment. The Petitioner acknowledges it was a 

“bad business decision.” But bad business decisions do not 

justify a finding of “abnormal obsolescence.”

81. The Petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for 

reducing the assessed value of its personal property. Where a 

Petitioner has not supported its claim with probative evidence, 

the Respondent’s duty to support the assessment with substantial 

evidence is not triggered.

Appellant’s App. p. 86-108 (some internal citations omitted). Evansville 

Courier now seeks judicial review of the Board’s decision.

Discussion and Decision

I. Standard of Review

[11] The Court gives great deference to decisions made by the Board when it acts 

within its authority. Hamilton Cty. Assessor v. Duke, 69 N.E.3d 567, 569 (Ind. 

Tax Ct. 2017). 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; in excess or 

short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of 
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 11 of 20

procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence. 

Ind. Code § 33-26-6-6(e). The party challenging the Board’s decision bears the 

burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Hamilton Cty., 69 N.E.3d at 569.

[12] The Court defers to the Board’s factual findings, but only if they are supported 

by substantial evidence. 6787 Steelworkers Hall, Inc. v. Scott, 933 N.E.2d 591, 595 

(Ind. Tax Ct. 2010). Evidence is substantial “‘if it is more than a scintilla and 

less than a preponderance or if it would be accepted as adequate to support a 

conclusion by a reasonable mind.’” Id. at 595 n.7 (quoting French Lick Twp. Tr. 

Assessor v. Kimball Int’l, Inc., 865 N.E.2d 732, 739-40 n.14 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007)). 

The Court applies a de novo standard of review to the Board’s legal 

conclusions. 6787 Steelworkers, 933 N.E.2d at 595. In conducting the review, 

the Court will neither reweigh evidence nor assess witness credibility. Id.

II. Untimely Submission of Exhibit

[13] Evansville Courier first argues that the Board erred by admitting into evidence a 

document submitted by the County that was not provided to Evansville Courier 

according to the requisite timeline.

[14] The Indiana Administrative Code mandates that a party to an administrative 

appeal before the Board “must provide” copies of documentary evidence to all 

other parties at least five business days before the hearing. 52 Ind. Admin. 

Code 2-7-1(b)(1) (emphasis added). Failure to comply with this rule “may serve 

as grounds to exclude the evidence[.]” 52 I.A.C. 2-7-1(b)(f). This Court has 

explained as a general matter that the purpose of the discovery rules is “to allow 
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 12 of 20

a free exchange of fact information and to permit each party to prepare its case 

for trial without concerns about trial by surprise or ambush.” Brandenburg 

Indus. Serv. Co. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 26 N.E.3d 147, 152 (Ind. Tax Ct. 

2015). And indeed, our Supreme Court has unequivocally and “consistently 

rejected a ‘gaming view’ of the litigation process.” Outback Steakhouse of Fl., Inc. 

v. Markley, 856 N.E.2d 65, 75 (Ind. 2006).

[15] It is undisputed that the County failed to provide a copy of its exhibit criticizing 

Venisnik’s appraisal at least five business days before the hearing. The County 

argued, and the Board ultimately held, that because the evidence was rebuttal 

evidence, its disclosure was not required. 

[16] The Court disagrees. It is well established that “the nondisclosure of a rebuttal 

witness is excused only when that witness was unknown and unanticipated; 

known and anticipated witnesses, even if presented in rebuttal, must be 

identified pursuant to a court order, such as a pre-trial order, or to a proper 

discovery request.” McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co., 605 N.E.2d 175, 179 

(Ind. 1993) (emphasis added). Here, the County was well aware of the nature 

of Venisnik’s testimony and arrived at the hearing armed with evidence to rebut 

that testimony. The exhibit in question was dated January 20, 2016, and the 

hearing occurred on January 26, 2016, meaning that this exhibit was known, 

anticipated, and actually available to be disclosed to Evansville Courier within 

the requisite timeline. Appellant’s App. p. 774-90. The County’s failure to do 

so constitutes precisely the type of “gotcha” litigation that Indiana courts abhor. 

Under these circumstances, the admission of this exhibit was erroneous.
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 13 of 20

III. Abnormal Obsolescence

A. General Principles

[17] Generally, all property located in the State of Indiana is required to be taxed as 

either personal or real property. 50 Ind. Admin. Code 4.2-1-3. With respect to 

personal property, a tax return must be filed in each taxing district where 

property has a tax situs subject to certain qualifications. 50 I.A.C. 4.2-4-2(a).

[18] Taxpayers must record the cost of depreciable property, both real and personal, 

and use that cost in determining the value of the depreciable personal property 

subject to assessment. Id. Ordinary depreciation of personal property is 

calculated pursuant to a set schedule contained in the Indiana Administrative 

Code. This schedule automatically reflects all adjustments for Indiana property 

tax purposes except for abnormal obsolescence. 50 I.A.C. 4.2-4-8. 

Consequently, Indiana taxpayers are not allowed adjustments to personal 

property assessments for normal obsolescence.

“Normal obsolescence” means the anticipated or expected 

reduction in the value of business personal property that can be 

foreseen by a reasonable, prudent businessman when property is 

acquired and placed into service. In general, it includes the 

expected, declining value through use, gradual decline in value 

because of expected technological improvements, the gradual 

deterioration or obsolescence through the mere passage of time, 

and the general assumption that such property will have a 

minimum value at the end of its useful life.

50 I.A.C. 4.2-9-2
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 14 of 20

[19] Indiana taxpayers are, however, allowed adjustments to personal property 

assessments for abnormal obsolescence.

(a) “Abnormal obsolescence” means that obsolescence which 

occurs as a result of factors over which the taxpayer has no 

control and is unanticipated, unexpected, and cannot 

reasonably be foreseen by a prudent businessman prior to the 

occurrence. It is of a nonrecurring nature and includes 

unforeseen changes in market values, exceptional 

technological obsolescence, or destruction by catastrophe 

that has a direct effect upon the value of the personal 

property of the taxpayer at the tax situs in question on a 

going concern basis.

(b) An example of unforeseen change in market value is a 

government ban on the sale of a drug or chemical due to a 

new discovery or determination may cause that item or the 

production equipment used to produce it to be abnormally 

obsolete. A specific example of this would be cyclamate. 

In this case the equipment used to produce it may be 

eligible for abnormal obsolescence.

(c) . . . [A]bnormal obsolescence due to exceptional 

technological obsolescence should be recognized to the 

extent that it causes the subject property to be incapable of 

use for current production or adaption to a different use. 

The invention of a newer, more productive piece of 

equipment which would produce a better quality item or 

utilization of state of the art technology that produces 

more efficiently at a lower cost of production does not 

cause an older, currently used asset to be considered 

abnormally obsolete. If the asset is still capable of performing 

the function for which it was acquired, and is producing both on 

and before the assessment date, no adjustment shall be allowed.

The use of historical cost, short useful life, and accelerated 
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 15 of 20

depreciation in developing the prescribed true tax value 

percentages result in an equitable assessment on the 

property in question.

50 I.A.C. 4.2-9-3 (emphases added). Abnormal obsolescence “includes the 

impairment of desirability and usefulness brought about by new inventions and 

improved processes for production, or the impairment of functional capacity or 

efficiency if the inadequacy or overadequacy causes a loss in value and has 

made the property incapable of continued use for a prolonged period during the 

assessment year.” 50 I.A.C. 4.2-4-8(a). The term “abnormal obsolescence” 

must be strictly construed and “limited to a situation where unforeseen changes 

in market values, exceptional technological obsolescence, or destruction by 

catastrophe occurs, providing that such events have a direct effect upon the 

valuation of the depreciable personal property of the taxpayer . . . .” 50 I.A.C. 

4.2-4-8(c).

[20] Abnormal obsolescence “should be recognized to the extent that the property 

qualifies for the adjustment and the taxpayer is able to substantiate the facts, 

circumstances, and amount of the claim in order to properly determine the true 

tax value of the subject property.” 50 I.A.C. 4.2-9-4. If a taxpayer substantiates 

a claim for abnormal obsolescence, an adjustment “will be allowed.” 50 I.A.C. 

4.2-9-6.

B. The Printing Press

[21] Evansville Courier contends that the Board erred by concluding that Evansville 

Courier failed to establish the abnormal obsolescence of the Printing Press and 
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 16 of 20

its related equipment. As noted above, the Board based this conclusion on two 

primary factors: (1) Evansville Courier “failed to point to a single, specific, 

non-recurring triggering event,” such as 9/11, justifying a determination of 

abnormal obsolescence; and (2) the Printing Press is still operable and has five 

years remaining of predicted useful service life. Appellant’s App. p. 106.

[22] There are two possible ways in which the Printing Press could qualify for an 

abnormal obsolescence adjustment: unforeseen changes in market values or 

exceptional technological obsolescence. Turning first to the latter, the 

Administrative Code requires that to make a successful claim of exceptional 

technological obsolescence, the personal property at issue must not be “still 

capable of performing the function for which it was acquired” and must not still 

be “producing both on and before the assessment date[.]” 50 I.A.C. 4.2-9-3(c). 

Here, it is undisputed that the Printing Press was still capable of performing the 

function for which it was acquired, was still producing output both on and 

before the assessment dates, and still had at least five years left of continuing 

functionality. Appellant’s App. p. 106 (noting that Venisnik’s own testimony 

established that there were “five years remaining of predicted useful service life” 

and that the Printing Press “continues to perform the purpose for which it was 

purchased twenty-five years ago”). Consequently, the plain terms of the 

Indiana Administrative Code mandate that Evansville Courier is not entitled to 

an abnormal obsolescence adjustment for the reason of exceptional 

technological obsolescence, and the Board did not err in so holding.
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 17 of 20

[23] The other possible way in which Evansville Courier could establish abnormal 

obsolescence was to show unforeseen changes in market values of the personal 

property at issue. The example of unforeseen changes in market values 

provided in the Indiana Administrative Code is the case of a pharmaceutical 

manufacturer that produces a drug that is suddenly banned in the United States, 

rendering the company’s equipment used to produce that drug abnormally 

obsolescent. 50 I.A.C. 4.2-9-3(b). The examples provided by the Board in the 

instant case involved two corporate entities that suffered a substantial decline in 

business following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Appellant’s App. p. 106.

[24] Evansville Courier directs our attention to the evidence in the record tending to 

show a dramatic decline in the printed newspaper industry over the past 

decade. According to Evansville Courier, this precipitous drop in subscribers 

and circulation is directly linked to new technology and inventions, including 

smartphones, high speed internet, and social media such as Facebook and 

Twitter. Additionally, newspapers compete with 24-hour news coverage on 

cable news networks and also compete for classified advertising dollars with 

online services such as Craigslist.

[25] As noted above, to qualify as abnormally obsolescent, the obsolescence must be 

unanticipated, unexpected, unforeseen, and non-recurring. Even if the Court

agrees solely for argument’s sake that the dramatic change in the newspaper 

industry over the past decade has been unanticipated, unexpected, and 

unforeseen, it is far more difficult to conclude that it is “non-recurring.” That 

term is not defined in the Indiana Administrative Code. Merriam-Webster 
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 18 of 20

Dictionary defines “nonrecurring” as follows: “nonrecurrent; specifically: 

unlikely to happen again—used of financial transactions that affect a profit and 

loss statement abnormally.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, at

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/non-recurring (last visited June 

1, 2017). “Nonrecurrent,” in turn, is defined as “not recurring,” and “recur” is 

defined in relevant part as “to occur again after an interval: occur time after 

time.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, at https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/recurring (last visited June 1, 2017). In other words, 

something that is “non-recurring” is a unique event that is unlikely to occur 

again.

[26] In our view, an ongoing downward trend of an industry that has been occurring 

slowly over the course of a decade, and is still happening, cannot logically be 

defined as “non-recurring.” It is more properly called “ongoing,” or “currently 

occurring.” 

[27] We acknowledge the administrative rule regarding “adjustment for 

obsolescence,” which states that abnormal obsolescence “includes the 

impairment of desirability and usefulness brought about by new inventions and 

improved processes for production.” 50 I.A.C. 4.2-4-8(a). At first blush, it may 

seem that this language, which implies a possibility of gradualness, conflicts

with the requirement that the obsolescence be non-recurring. On closer 

examination, however, the language can be reconciled. 
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 19 of 20

[28] Initially, it is important to note that Rule 4-8 refers to the definition of abnormal 

obsolescence found in Rule 9-3, which includes the “non-recurring” 

requirement. Id. Furthermore, Rule 4-8 requires that the term “abnormal 

obsolescence” be strictly construed. Id. at -8(c). Finally, the Court believes that 

an impairment of desirability and usefulness brought about by new inventions 

and improved processes can, in fact, result from a non-recurring event and be of 

a non-recurring nature. The invention of the VHS videocassette system would 

be such an event from the perspective of companies manufacturing Betamax 

systems. The invention of MP3 players would be such an event from the 

perspective of companies manufacturing compact discs and compact disc 

players. There are undoubtedly countless other examples of industries facing a 

dramatic drop in the value of personal property because of a single new 

invention or a single new process development.

[29] Here, unfortunately for Evansville Courier and the other struggling newspapers 

around the country, a whole host of events, inventions, and developments have 

taken place to cause the gradual decline of the industry. As noted above, 

among other things, we can look to high speed internet, smartphones, 24-hour 

television news, Facebook, Twitter, internet-only news providers such as 

Buzzfeed, etc. There is no one, non-recurring event on which blame can be 

placed. Under these circumstances, Evansville Courier has not established that 

the obsolescence of its property is non-recurring in nature. Therefore, the 

Board did not err by finding that Evansville Courier has not met its burden of 

establishing a prima facie case or by denying its petitions.
Indiana Tax Court | Opinion 02T10-1611-TA-55 | June 5, 2017 Page 20 of 20

[30] The judgment of the Board is affirmed.

[31] SO ORDERED this 5th day of June 2017.

__________________________________

John G. Baker, Special Judge

Indiana Tax Court

DISTRIBUTION:

Joshua C. Neal, William A. Ramsey, Winston Lin, and Jessica R. Gastineau