12 N.E.3d 1000
Ind. T.C.2014Background
- Clark County challenged the DLGF's final determination denying its excess levy petition for 2011.
- Council chose not to take the maximum levy in 2008, despite DLGF warnings about future impact.
- The 2008 reduction allegedly caused a long-term shortfall, claimed to total over $7.2 million through 2011.
- Clark County sought $7,206,383 through a levy appeal after depleted reserves in 2010.
- Statutory framework involved IC 6-1.1-18.5-3 formula, IC 6-1.1-18.5-14 correction of data, and IC 6-1.1-18.5-12 hearings.
- The court affirmed the DLGF’s final determination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DLGF properly denied a data‑error correction under IC 6-1.1-18.5-14. | Clark County says a 2008 data error foregone maximum levy. | DLGF found no objective data error; decision was a policy choice. | Affirmed; no data error to correct. |
| Whether the 2011 amendment eliminating the use‑it‑or‑lose‑it provision applies retroactively. | Amendment remedial; should apply retroactively. | Amendment not retroactive; not remedial. | Not retroactive; upheld. |
| Whether §6-1.1-18.5-12 required a hearing on the levy appeal. | Due process requires a hearing. | statute did not require a hearing. | Not required; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. Horizon Bancorp, 644 N.E.2d 870 (Ind.1994) (plain meaning governs unambiguous statutes)
- Brown v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 989 N.E.2d 386 (Ind. Tax Ct.2013) (burden to show final determination invalidity)
- State v. Pelley, 828 N.E.2d 915 (Ind.2005) (remedial statutes depend on legislative intent)
- Bourbon Mini-Mart, Inc. v. Gast Fuel & Servs., Inc., 783 N.E.2d 253 (Ind.2003) (remedial amendments construed to effect evident purpose)
- DeKalb Cnty. E. Cmby. Sch. Dist. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 930 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. Tax Ct.2010) (legislative language governs retroactive effect)