Orange County Assessor v. Stout
2013 Ind. Tax LEXIS 23
| Ind. T.C. | 2013Background
- James E. Stout owns 9.12 acres in West Baden Springs; 8.12 acres were reclassified from "agricultural" to "residential excess," raising assessed value from $8,000 (2008) to $45,600 (2009).
- Stout appealed to the county PTABOA in May 2010; PTABOA did not decide within 120 days, so appeal proceeded to the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board).
- At the July 7, 2011 hearing Stout argued the burden-shifting statute (5% rule) required the Assessor to prove the assessment; the Assessor argued the statute (I.C. § 6-1.1-15-17) was not applicable to appeals of the 2009 assessment because it became effective July 1, 2011.
- The Indiana Board concluded the Assessor bore the burden of proving the assessment was correct and found the Assessor failed to meet that burden.
- On judicial review, the Assessor contended the Indiana Board applied the statute retroactively and that, alternatively, the Assessor had adequate evidence to justify reclassification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17 (5% burden-shifting rule) was applied retroactively to appeals pending before its effective date | Assessor: Indiana Board retroactively applied a "new" statute to a 2009 assessment appeal; statute should not apply to pending appeals | Stout/Indiana Board: The burden-shifting rule existed earlier in § 6-1.1-15-1(p); § 6-1.1-15-17 clarified, not changed, scope and applies to pending appeals where increase >5% | Court held statute was not applied retroactively; burden-shift rule applied to this appeal because predecessor statute was in effect when appeal was filed |
| Whether the statutory trigger is the assessment date or the filing of an appeal | Assessor: Trigger is assessment date; statute should apply only to assessments made after statute effective date | Stout/Indiana Board: Trigger is the appeal process (an appeal of an assessment that increased >5%), so statute applies regardless of assessment date | Court held trigger is the appeal/process (not assessment date); statute applies to pending appeals where the challenged assessment increased >5% |
| Whether the Assessor met her burden to show the land was not in agricultural use | Assessor: Reclassification was proper; aerials and county review justified removing agricultural classification for lack of forest management/timber plan | Stout: Lack of a management/harvest plan alone does not prove non-agricultural use; evidence insufficient to rebut agricultural classification | Court held Assessor did not provide substantial evidence that Stout’s 8.12 acres were not in agricultural use; absence of a plan insufficient to prove non-agricultural use |
| Whether the Indiana Board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence | Assessor: Board’s finding was unsupported because county procedures and aerial evidence justified assessment | Stout: Board’s decision was supported because Assessor produced no evidence of non-agricultural use (e.g., farm number, crop sales, harvest records) | Court held Indiana Board’s determination was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Osolo Twp. Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane Assocs., 789 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (party challenging Indiana Board must prove its invalidity)
- Lake Cnty. Assessor v. Amoco Sulfur Recovery Corp., 930 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (statutes on same subject are in pari materia and construed together)
- Uniden Am. Corp. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 718 N.E.2d 821 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (avoid constructions that produce illogical or absurd results)
- Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. Kitchin Hospitality, LLC, 907 N.E.2d 997 (Ind.) (amendment clarifying original legislative intent may not change meaning)
- Amax, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 552 N.E.2d 850 (Ind. Tax Ct.) (standard for reviewing whether a final determination is supported by the evidence)