40 N.E.3d 536
Ind. T.C.2015Background
- IndyGo, a public transportation corporation, prepared and submitted its 2012 budget, levies, and rates to the City-County Council as required by statute.
- The Council reduced some of IndyGo’s proposed appropriations and levies and forwarded the budgets for IndyGo, the City of Indianapolis, and Marion County to the DLGF for review.
- On Feb. 3, 2012, the DLGF issued statutory "1782 notices" proposing adjustments to budgets, rates, and levies for taxing units in Marion County, including reductions to IndyGo’s levies and rates.
- IndyGo submitted written objections/responses to the DLGF’s 1782 notice alleging calculation errors; the DLGF left its adjustments in place and issued the Marion County 2012 Budget Order (later amended) which incorporated those adjustments.
- IndyGo filed a petition for judicial review within 45 days of the DLGF’s budget order, alleging the DLGF’s adjustments would reduce its levies; the DLGF moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing IndyGo lacked standing under I.C. § 6-1.1-17-16(g)(1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IndyGo has standing to seek judicial review under I.C. § 6-1.1-17-16(g)(1) | IndyGo contends its written response to the DLGF’s 1782 notice constituted an appeal to the DLGF, giving it standing to challenge the certified county budget order | DLGF contends subsection (g)(1) requires a prior formal "appeal" (only an excess levy appeal under § 6-1.1-17-15), which IndyGo did not file, so IndyGo lacks standing | Court held IndyGo’s response to the 1782 notice constituted an "appeal" for purposes of § 6-1.1-17-16(g)(1), so IndyGo has standing; DLGF’s motion denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Eskew v. Cornett, 744 N.E.2d 954 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (standard for judgment on the pleadings)
- Bielski v. Zorn, 627 N.E.2d 880 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1994) (standing doctrine overview)
- Pence v. State, 652 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. 1995) (standing ensures party may enforce claim)
- Schloss v. City of Indianapolis, 553 N.E.2d 1204 (Ind. 1990) (personal stake/injury requirement for standing)
- Hoosier Energy Rural Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 820 N.E.2d 787 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004) (statutory interpretation: negative inferences)
- Hyatt Corp. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 695 N.E.2d 1051 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998) (legislative intent drawn from statutory language)
- DeKalb Cnty. E. Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Dep’t Local Gov’t Fin., 930 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010) (avoiding statutory constructions producing absurd results)
- Board Sch. Comm’rs of City of Indianapolis v. Eakin, 444 N.E.2d 1197 (Ind. 1983) (DLGF not required to hold full quasi‑judicial hearings in all budget reviews)
- Metropolitan Sch. Dist. Pike Twp. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 962 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2011) (treating 1782 response as initiating appeal in prior decisions)
- Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Indiana Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 15 N.E.3d 1141 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014) (similar holding on 1782 notice response conferring standing)