987 N.E.2d 1178
Ind. T.C.2013Background
- Kooshtard owned two acres in Shelbyville with a convenience store and gas station; assessments applied a 100% positive influence factor increasing value from $200,000 to $400,000 per acre.
- Kooshtard timely challenged the assessments via PTABOA and then the Indiana Board, which consolidated the petitions and upheld the assessments on October 8, 2010.
- Kooshtard appealed to the Indiana Tax Court; standard of review requires showing the Indiana Board’s final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, or not supported by substantial or reliable evidence.
- Indiana law assesses real property at market value-in-use using Guidelines; land valuations start with base rates and may include an influence factor to reflect unique conditions.
- To rebut the presumption of correctness, a taxpayer must present market-based evidence; Kooshtard argued lack of uniformity and urged removal of the 100% factor based on sales data, but provided only conclusory statements.
- Kooshtard later raised new arguments on appeal (post hoc rationalization and rule-of-law concerns) which the court found were waived because not presented to the Indiana Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Kooshtard establish a prima facie case that land was overassessed? | Kooshtard argues the 100% influence factor was inapplicable or applied nonuniformly and overvalued its land. | Board held Kooshtard failed to show a prima facie case with probative market-based evidence. | Kooshtard failed to prove prima facie case; Board's determination stands. |
| Was Kooshtard's lack of market-based evidence fatal to its claim? | Kooshtard presented market data to show overassessment; Board ignored it. | Kooshtard provided no market-based evidence to quantify impact of the factor; conclusory statements insufficient. | Insufficient market-based evidence; no prima facie case established. |
| Are Kooshtard's new appellate arguments reviewable or waived? | New arguments show post hoc rationalization and misapplication of guidelines. | New arguments were not presented to the Indiana Board and are waived on appeal. | Waived for lack of presentation to the Indiana Board. |
Key Cases Cited
- Inland Steel Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 739 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000) (prima facie evidence standard; sufficiency requires probative evidence)
- Lake Cnty. Assessor v. U.S. Steel Corp., 901 N.E.2d 85 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2009) (market-based evidence can quantify impact of a negative influence factor)
- Westfield Golf Practice Center v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007) (court rejection of similar rule-of-law challenges to assessment method)
- Kooshtard Prop. VI, LLC v. White River Twp. Assessor, 836 N.E.2d 501 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (reaffirming use of market-based evidence and appraisal standards)
- P/A Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings Cnty. Assessor, 842 N.E.2d 899 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) (reaffirming narrow scope of appellate rule-of-law challenges)