Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Property Dev. Co. Four, LLC v. Grant Cnty. Assessor

Tax Court of Indiana

May 12, 2015

PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOUR, LLC, Petitioner,
v.
GRANT COUNTY ASSESSOR, Respondent

As Corrected June 12, 2015.

ON APPEAL FROM THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW.

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: PAUL K. OGDEN, OGDEN LAW FIRM, Indianapolis, IN; JEFFREY R. COX, J.R. COX LAW, LLC, Indianapolis, IN.

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: GREGORY F. ZOELLER, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA, EVAN W. BARTEL, JONATHAN R. SICHTERMANN, DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL, Indianapolis, IN.

OPINION

WENTWORTH, J.

Property Development Company Four, LLC appeals the Indiana Board of Tax Review's final determination that upheld the Grant County Assessor's assessments of its real property for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 tax years. The Court finds that the Indiana Board's final determination should be affirmed in part and reversed in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Property Development builds homes for the disabled. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 8, 183.) In 2003, Property Development purchased a parcel of land in the Hickory Hills Subdivision, Marion, Indiana (" the

Page 1050

Eastway Drive Property" ) and another parcel of land in the Meadows East Subdivision, Marion, Indiana (" the Aspen Court Property" ). (See Cert. Admin. R. at 83, 94, 120, 124-25.) These two properties are the subject of this appeal.

At the time of purchase, the subject properties were vacant and assessed as agricultural land. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 120, 124-25, 272.) After obtaining the necessary building permits, Property Development built a home on each parcel. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 84, 184, 186.) The Assessor did not assess the subject properties at that time, however, because she did not receive the building permits and, therefore, did not have notice that construction had even begun. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 152, 265-66.)

On July 11, 2006, the Assessor assessed the Eastway Drive Property for the 2004 and 2005 tax years. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 124-27.) That same day, the Assessor mailed two " Reports of Assessment for Omitted or Undervalued Property Assessment and Assessment Penalties" (Form 122s) to Property Development, which provided that the property's assessments had been increased from $16,800 to $107,300 for the 2004 and 2005 tax years. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 126-27.)

The following year, the Assessor assessed the Aspen Court Property for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 tax years. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 120-23.) On July 30, 2007, the Assessor mailed three Form 122s to Coronado Ridge Development Corporation, the prior owner of the Aspen Court Property,[1] which indicated that its assessments had been increased from $200 to $87,800 for the 2004, 2005, and 2006 tax years. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 121-23.) Although Coronado Ridge typically received and forwarded the tax bills for the Aspen Court Property to Property Development's president, it did not forward the Form 122s to Property Development. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 44, 47, 84.)

In the years following the assessments, Property Development paid the tax liabilities on its properties as they became due. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 43, 184, 186.) Not until 2010, however, did the Grant County Treasurer attempt for the first time to recover from Property Development the additional tax liabilities, penalties, and fees arising from the 2004, 2005, and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.