Justia Tax Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court held that when a property's assessment increases by more than five percent over the previous year and the Indiana Board of Tax Review finds incorrect both parties' assessment, a statutory clause requires that the assessment reverts to the assessment for the prior tax year.In 2014, the Ross Township assessor in Lake County increased the tax assessment for Southlake Mall, Owned by Southlake Indiana, LLC. The new assessed values were more than double the assessments for the three prior tax years. The tax court affirmed in all respects except for a pair of reimbursements not at issue on appeal. Southlake appealed, arguing that the tax court erred by not applying the reversionary clause in Ind. Code 6-1.1-15-17.2(b). The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because neither party met its burden of proof, section 17.2's reversionary clause controlled, requiring that the assessments revert to the assessment for each prior tax year. View "Southlake Indiana LLC v. Lake County Assessor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this property valuation matter for further proceedings, holding that the use of a now-defunct tax appeal form challenging assessments to certain homeowners' association lands for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 was proper.Petitioners, homeowners' associations located in Marion County, filed petitions for correction of an error (Form 133) alleging that property tax assessments from the years 2001 through 2003 were illegal because certain common areas of the properties were so encumbered by restrictions that the land had no value. The Marion County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals denied the forms. The Tax Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding in part that the HOAs' claim was not proper for a Form 133. The Supreme Court reversed in part and summarily affirmed in part, holding that Form 133 was a proper avenue to challenge the application of a discount to common land within the HOAs' property. View "Muir Woods Section One Ass'n Inc. v. Marion County Assessor" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Indiana Land Trust's motion to set aside a tax deed, holding that the LaPorte County Auditor gave adequate notice reasonably calculated to inform Indiana Land Trust Company of the impeding tax sale of the property.Taxes went unpaid on a vacant property from 2009 to 2015. The county auditor sent notice of an impending tax sale via certified letter and first-class mail to the notice listed on the deed for the property. The certified letter came back as undeliverable, and the first-class mail was not returned. Notice was eventually published in the local newspaper. The property sold, and a tax deed was issued to the purchaser. When the original owner learned of the sale it moved to set aside the tax deed due to insufficient notice. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the county auditor provided adequate notice and was not required to search its own internal records for a better tax sale notice address; and (2) the trial court properly denied Indiana Land Trust's motion to set aside the tax deed. View "Indiana Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court denying Indiana Land Trust's motion to set aside a tax deed, holding that the LaPorte County Auditor gave adequate notice reasonably calculated to inform Indiana Land Trust Company of the impending tax sale of the property.From 2009 to 2015, the owner of vacant property did not pay property taxes. Through a third-party service, the county auditor sent simultaneous notice of an impending tax sale by way of certified letter and first-class mail to the address listed on the deed for the property. The owner, however, had moved and had not updated its address. Later, notice was published in the local newspaper. The property eventually sold and a tax deed was issued to the purchaser. The original owner moved to set aside the tax deed due to insufficient notice. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's denial of Indiana Land Trust Company's motion to set aside the tax deed, holding that the county auditor provided notice reasonably calculated, under all circumstances, to apprise the owner of the pendency of the action and afforded them an opportunity to present their objections. View "Indiana Land Trust Co. v. XL Investment Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Tax Court determining that Richardson’s RV owed no Indiana sales tax because it took RVs it sold to certain out-of-state customers into Michigan before handing over the keys, holding that Richardson’s structured the Michigan deliveries solely to avoid taxes with no other legitimate business purpose.After an audit, the Department of Revenue issues proposed assessments to Richardson’s totaling nearly $250,000 in unpaid taxes and interest for the Michigan deliveries and deliveries to other states. The Tax Court granted summary judgment for Richardson’s, concluding that Indiana’s exemption statute did not apply to any of these transactions because, as a matter of law, the sales transactions at issue were not made ‘in Indiana.’” The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case, holding (1) the Michigan deliveries were subject to sales tax because Richardson’s executed the Michigan deliveries solely to avoid paying Indiana sales tax with no other legitimate business purpose; and (2) the Tax Court must determine if the non-Michigan deliveries were taxable. View "Richardson's RV, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue" on Justia Law

Here, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the longstanding principle that direct production involves a process that includes those steps essential and integral to transforming tangible personal property into a distinct marketable good.The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Tax Court affirming the decision of the Department of State Revenue partially denying refund claims submitted by Petitioner for sales tax paid on blast freezing equipment and the electricity used in operating that equipment. Petitioner petitioned the Supreme Court for review, arguing that it qualified for exemptions under the relevant statutes because it engages in “direct production” when it blast freezes another company’s food product and that it engages in its own production process in producing the new, distinct marketable goods. In reversing, the Supreme Court held (1) Petitioner’s blast freezing process constitutes direct production because it represents the crucial final step in creating a distinct marketable good; and (2) the relevant statutes and regulations do not impose a requirement that Petitioner’s blast-freezing procedure be its own, separate production process. View "Merchandise Warehouse Co. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue" on Justia Law