Hamilton Square Investment, LLC. v. Hamilton County Assessor
2016 Ind. Tax LEXIS 41
| Ind. T.C. | 2016Background
- Hamilton Square Investment, LLC owns a 200-unit apartment complex on ~20 acres in Westfield, Indiana; assessor valued the property for 2012 and allocated ~70% as residential and ~30% as nonresidential.
- The assessor classified building interiors and the land under building footprints as residential; clubhouses, pool, paving, sheds and remaining land were classified nonresidential.
- Tax-cap credits under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-20.6-7.5 were applied at 2% for residential and 3% for nonresidential portions.
- Hamilton Square appealed the classification (arguing the assessor unduly restricted “common areas”) first to the county PTABOA (which took no action) and then to the Indiana Board of Tax Review; the Board upheld the assessor by interpreting “common areas” as limited to areas within a building footprint.
- The Indiana Tax Court reviewed the Board’s final determination on statutory grounds and reversed, holding that “common areas” can include exterior land and improvements shared by tenants, not only interior building spaces.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether "common areas" in the Residential Property Statute are limited to areas within a building footprint | "Common areas" include land and improvements beyond the building footprint that are shared by tenants (e.g., pool, clubhouse, parking) | The phrase limits common areas to building "improvements" shared by dwelling units (hallways, stairways) and thus excludes standalone structures and their land | Court held statute ambiguous; construed to give effect to all terms and concluded "common areas" can include attached and detached shared land/improvements available to tenants; reversed Board |
| Whether a separate constitutional uniformity/equal protection challenge required decision | Hamilton Square raised a "uniform and equal" constitutional claim | Assessor relied on statutory interpretation; Board relied on statute | Court did not reach constitutional claim because statutory resolution disposed of the case |
Key Cases Cited
- Hubler Realty Co. v. Hendricks Cnty. Assessor, 938 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (burden to overturn Board decision)
- City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612 (Ind.) (statutory ambiguity and construction)
- Bd. of Comm'rs of Cnty. of Jasper v. Vincent, 988 N.E.2d 1280 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (legislative intent controls statutory construction)
- Washington Park Cemetery Ass'n v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 9 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (read statutory parts together; avoid piecemeal reading)
- Indiana Dep't of State Revenue v. Horizon Bancorp, 644 N.E.2d 870 (Ind.) (courts will not read into a statute what legislature did not intend)
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 597 N.E.2d 1327 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (statutory resolution can obviate constitutional questions)