Source: https://www.taxhatchet.com/proceed-with-caution-part-7/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 18:24:04+00:00

Document:
Indiana Board lacked jurisdiction to rule on property’s assessments for years not under appeal. LHC Partners, LLC v. Montgomery County Assessor, Pet. No. 54-009-08-1-5-00043 (Dec. 3, 2012) (March 1, 2008 assessment). “To the extent that the Petitioner’s witness suggests that the Board should reduce the Petitioner’s property’s 2009, 2010, 2011 or 2012 assessed values, those assessment years are not before the Board in this appeal. And the Board has no jurisdiction to change an assessment that is not on appeal before it.” (Page 11, ¶ 30 n.8) (citing Whetzel v. Department of Local Government Finance, 761 N.E.2d 904, 908 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001)).
Indiana Board has no jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding city services. Potter v. Tippecanoe County Assessor, Petition Nos. 79-032-10-1-5-00001 et al. (Dec. 21, 2012) (March 1, 2010 assessment). The Board explained, “Ultimately, the Petitioner’s issue is with the subdivision’s location on a ‘private drive’ and the lack of city services the properties receive as a result of that designation.” (Page 8, ¶ 15(h).) The Board lacks jurisdiction over the provision of city services to Owner’s duplexes. Id.
Not a Dull moment. Indiana Board sua sponte rules that it lacked jurisdiction to hear appeal challenging statutes addressing budget levy and local option income taxes. Dull v. Lake County Assessor, Pet. No. 45-044-10-3-5-00176 (Jan. 23, 2013) (March 1, 2010 assessment). Property owners challenged the constitutionality of two statutes (Indiana Code § 6-1.1-18.5-2(c), Indiana Code § 6-3.5-6-32(j)) freezing Lake County’s tax levy unless a local option income tax is passed and removing the ability to pass such a tax by the Lake County Income Tax Council. With this freeze in place, the Owners asserted, Lake County cannot provide the same level of services as it did in 2007 – an impact felt by every local governmental unit and the county. They argued the statutes violate various federal and state constitutional provisions, including that the statutes constitute impermissible special legislation. Owners did not contest the assessed value of the property under review. The Indiana Board declined to reach the merits and sua sponte concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over Lake County’s budget or local income tax issues. (Page 9, ¶ 18.) The Board reasoned that “while arguably the county’s maximum budget levy has some impact on the property taxes the [Owners] paid in 2010, the Board has no jurisdiction over property taxes or tax rates.” Id.
Taxpayers may not challenge their tax rates or bills before the Board. Irvin v. Perry County Assessor, Pet. No. 62-003-10-1-5-00013 (Jan. 31, 2013) (March 1, 2010 assessment) [Small Claims Docket]. “The Board can address appeals from determinations made by local assessing officials or county PTABOAs [i.e. the local review board] that concern property valuations, property tax deductions, property tax exemptions, or property tax credits. No statute authorizes the Board to review tax rates or tax bills. Therefore, to the extent that the Petitioner may have attempted to contest his tax liability, the Board lacks jurisdiction.” (Page 5, ¶ 15(a)) (citing Ind. Code § 6-1.5-4-1(a)).
Non-attorney, non-certified tax representative son allowed to represent taxpayer-mother; Form 131 timely where PTABOA failed to mail Form 115 notice to son’s address. Castleman v. Steuben County Assessor, Pet. No. 76-006-10-1-5-00023 (Jan. 11, 2013) (March 1, 2010 assessment). Taxpayer’s son represented her at the Indiana Board’s hearing. The son was not an attorney or a certified tax representative. Because the mother appeared at the hearing, she could call the son as her witness. (Page 1, ¶ 4 n.1.) Assessor did not object to the son offering exhibits and making arguments. The Board concluded that the mother “appears to have ratified [son’s] actions by her silence.” Id.
Failure to timely initiate appeal was a “fatal mistake” making the Board’s review process “unavailable” where PTABOA refused to hear appeal. Huismann v. Dearborn County Assessor, Petition No. 15-007-11-1-5-00579 (Feb. 13, 2013) (March 1, 2011 assessment) [Small Claims Docket]. The Form 11 assessment notice assessing Homeowners’ property was dated September 14, 2011. They had 45-days from that point – until October 29th (or, as noted above, until October 31st because of the 45th day falling on a Saturday) – to file an appeal. Homeowners’ admitted they “missed the date” by filing their appeal on November 14, 2011. (Page 4, ¶ 14.) The approximate two-week delay was a “fatal mistake.” (Page 4, ¶ 15.) Because the initial appeal was untimely, review of the PTABOA’s decision not to consider modifying the assessment was “unavailable.” Id.
Indiana Board lacked authority to hear Form 132 petitions filed more than 45 days after receipt of tax bill. In GCH, LLC v. St. Joseph County Assessor, Pet. No. 71-018-09-2-8-00004 (March 19, 2012) (March 1, 2008 and 2009 assessment dates), the Indiana Board of Tax Review considered the application of a property exemption in a case with a “convoluted history.” (Page 1, ¶ 1.) The property was transferred to the owner GCH, LLC (GCH) sometime after August 2008. During the relevant periods at issue, the property was leased to the United States Social Security Administration. It had received the exemption for several years. Only upon receipt of the November 2009 tax bill did GCH receive notice that the exemption had been removed. On March 17, 2010, GCH filed a Form 132 appeal petition with the Assessor. In November 2010, GCH mailed a Form 132 petition to the Indiana Board. GCH’s filings, the Board noted, “have caused much confusion,” and “other things have contributed to the procedural morass” facing the Board. (Page 6, ¶¶ 18 & 19.) Those “other things” included: (1) the property’s exemption had been removed without notice to the taxpayer; (2) the property tax appeal statutes “do not spell out how a taxpayer should challenge such an action”; (3) GCH initially filed Form 132 petitions in different places and did not fill in the assessment date at issue on one petition; and (4) GCH ignored the Board’s notice of defects regarding the Form 132 petitions.
Trial court’s injunctions from the 1970s didn’t bind Assessor, PTABOA or Indiana Board. Local Union 414 International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Allen County Assessor, Pet. No. 02-074-08-2-8-00014 (Dec. 3, 2012) (March 1, 2008). In the appeal of the denial of a property tax exemption for a union’s office and meeting facility, the union asserted that decisions rendered by Marion County courts decades ago found labor unions to be tax exempt. These decisions applied to all Indiana assessors, the union argued. (Page 9, ¶ 17(D).) The union asked the Indiana Board to take judicial notice of several injunctions issued by the Marion County Superior Court in the 1970s. (Page 18, ¶ 32.) The Board observed: “Because the Indiana Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over any case that arises under the tax laws of Indiana, it is not clear how decisions from a court with no jurisdiction over property tax matters could be binding on the [Assessor], the Allen County PTABOA or the Indiana Board of Tax Review.” Id. In a footnote, the Board cited to a 2008 Indiana Court of Appeals decision noting that the Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over tax appeals and finding that the Marion County Superior Court lacked jurisdiction to order a property tax refund. (Page 18, ¶ 32 n.5) (citing Marion County Auditor v. Revival Temple of Apostolic Church, 898 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)).
House used for charitable and religious purposes found taxable; exemption waived where application filed too late. Servants of the Streets FWTC, Inc. v. Elkhart County Assessor, Pet. No. 20-009-10-2-8-00001 (Feb. 26, 2013) (March 1, 2010 assessment). The filing date for a Form 136 property tax exemption application is May 15th. For the March 1, 2010 assessment date, Servants of the Streets filed its application on June 4, 2010, and it presented no evidence that the property had been previously exempted (property that has previously been exempted for charitable or religious purposes may not have to re-file an exemption application if the property’s physical status and use have not materially changed). Servants of the Streets asked the Indiana Board to “find a way to waive the filing deadline.” (Page 7, ¶ 23.) There was no dispute that the property was used for charitable and religious purposes, but the Board was compelled to find that Servants of the Streets had waived its right to an exemption. (Page 7, ¶ 24.) The house was 100% taxable. Id.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 6
 § 6
 v. 
 § 6
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.