CVS Corporation (6698-02) v. Monroe County Assessor
83 N.E.3d 1281
| Ind. T.C. | 2017Background
- Subject property: a 12,799 sq. ft. CVS on 2.79 acres in Bloomington, Indiana; disputed assessed values for 2011–2013.
- Assessor set values around $2.35–$2.48 million; CVS’s appraisal valued the property at $1.81–$1.94 million.
- Both parties submitted appraisal reports using sales comparison, income, and cost approaches; Board used stipulated evidence and an expedited review.
- CVS asked the Indiana Board to take judicial notice of administrative records from two prior CVS cases; the Board denied the request as those records were not part of the stipulated evidence.
- The Board adopted CVS’s land valuations but the Assessor’s improvement valuations, producing intermediate values ~ $2.33–$2.36 million; CVS appealed to the Tax Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board was required to take judicial notice of prior administrative records | CVS: Board must judicially notice prior CVS cases involving same parties/appraisers, binding the Board | Assessor: Board had discretion; prior records were not part of stipulated evidence | Held: No mandatory duty to take judicial notice; Board’s refusal not contrary to law |
| Whether Board acted arbitrarily/capriciously by rejecting CVS’s income approach | CVS: Board should have followed its weighting in prior CVS cases and accepted CVS income approach | Assessor: Board may weigh evidence per case; CVS income approach lacked adequate explanation and local correlation | Held: Not arbitrary; Board reasonably found CVS income approach unpersuasive due to weak explanation and reliance on national/regional data |
| Whether final determination lacked substantial/reliable evidence | CVS: Board’s values inconsistent with prior CVS cases and unsupported by record | Assessor: Board explained its credibility determinations; relied on cost approach and mixed components from both appraisals | Held: Final determination is supported by substantial, reliable evidence; Court will not reweigh evidence |
| Whether Board must treat prior similar tax-year/property determinations as controlling | CVS: Prior CVS decisions should dictate outcomes here | Assessor: Each tax year/property stands alone; Board not bound to reach same conclusions | Held: Board not bound by prior decisions; each case evaluated on its own facts |
Key Cases Cited
- CVS Corp. v. Monroe Cnty. Assessor, 62 N.E.3d 478 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2016) (prior CVS decision relied on by petitioner)
- Monroe Cnty. Assessor v. SCP 2002 E19 LLC, 77 N.E.3d 270 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2017) (another prior CVS decision relied on by petitioner)
- Horton v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1154 (Ind. 2016) (addresses judicial notice and record insertion issues)
- Dawkins v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 659 N.E.2d 706 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995) (arbitrary and capricious standard explained)
- DeKalb Cnty. Assessor v. Chavez, 48 N.E.3d 928 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2016) (defines substantial and reliable evidence standard)
- Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 747 N.E.2d 645 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (each assessment/tax year stands alone)
- Kildsig v. Warrick Cnty. Assessor, 998 N.E.2d 764 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013) (court may not reweigh evidence presented to the Board)
- French Lick Twp. Tr. Assessor v. Kimball Int’l, Inc., 865 N.E.2d 732 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007) (party must make Board understand its evidence to be probative)