American Juice Co., Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Com'rs, 49T05-8710-TA-00049

• Decision Date: 01 September 1988
• Docket Number: No. 49T05-8710-TA-00049,49T05-8710-TA-00049
• Citation: 527 N.E.2d 1169
• Parties: AMERICAN JUICE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS, Respondent.
• Court: Indiana Tax Court

Page 1169

527 N.E.2d 1169

AMERICAN JUICE CO., INC., Petitioner, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS, Respondent.

No. 49T05-8710-TA-00049.

Tax Court of Indiana.

Sept. 1, 1988.

James L. Wieser, Highland, for petitioner.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., by Marilyn S. Meighen, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for respondent.

FISHER, Judge.

STATEMENT OF CASE

American Juice is a wholly owned subsidiary of Canfield Beverage, Inc., formed as

a companion corporation for the distribution of juice products. After search and consideration of several locations in different states and other parts of Indiana, the company chose property at 1 North Bridge Street, Gary, Indiana as a site for its plant. A factor in the selection of this site was the availability of tax abatement in the form of a deduction for new manufacturing equipment. Officials and representatives of the City of Gary indicated that such abatement provided by IC 6-1.1-12.1-1 et seq. would be available to American Juice. In both 1985 and 1986, American Juice deducted the amounts it considered proper under IC 6-1.1-12.1-1 et seq., then reported the net amount on its returns. It did not follow the procedures outlined in the statutes. At the time American Juice filed its returns, it believed that it had complied with all prerequisites necessary to claim the deduction. A hearing was held concerning the 1986 return and the State Board denied the deduction on the basis, inter alia, that there was insufficient evidence that the property was located in an economic revitalization area.

DECISION

The deduction sought by American Juice is available for new manufacturing equipment or other property located in an economic revitalization area. IC 6-1.1-12.1-1(1) defines an economic revitalization area as:

[A]n area which is within the corporate limits of a city, town, or county which has become undesirable for, or impossible of, normal development and occupancy because of a lack of development, cessation of growth, deterioration of improvements or character of occupancy, age, obsolescence, substandard buildings or other factors which have impaired values or prevent a normal development of property or use of property.

Property tax deductions provided for in IC 6-1.1-12.1-4.5 and IC 6-1.1-12.1-3 are available only if the new manufacturing equipment or other property is located within an economic revitalization area. IC 6-1.1--12.1-2(e). It is incumbent upon the person seeking to claim the deduction to proffer evidence establishing that its property is actually located within an area properly designated as an economic revitalization area. American Juice did not proffer such evidence prior to or on the date of the State Board's final determination. ¹ Consequently, this court is again faced with a case where the taxpayer has failed to present sufficient evidence to the State Board, and desires to rectify its error by presenting additional evidence to this court.

This court has exclusive jurisdiction over initial appeals of the State Board's final determinations arising under Indiana tax laws. IC 33-3-5-2. Review of final determinations is governed by the law that applied before the creation of this court. IC 33-3-5-14.

In Uhlir v. Ritz (1970), 255 Ind. 342, 264 N.E.2d 312, 314, the Indiana Supreme Court held that a court making a determination under a particular statute must look at the facts as they were found by the administrative agency. Furthermore, "[i]f evidence not presented to the board were admissible on...