Chevrolet of Columbus, Inc. v. Bartholomew Cnty. Assessor
| Decision Date | 08 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 21T-TA-00028 |
| Citation | 187 N.E.3d 349 |
| Parties | CHEVROLET OF COLUMBUS, INC., Petitioner, v. BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY ASSESSOR, Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Tax Court |
ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER: MELISSA G. MICHIE, TAX CONSULTANTS, INC., Columbus, IN
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: MARILYN S. MEIGHEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Carmel, IN, BRIAN A. CUSIMANO, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Indianapolis, IN
Chevrolet of Columbus, Inc. challenges the Indiana Board of Tax Review's final determination that its appeals for a correction of error for the 2016 through 2018 tax years were not timely filed. Upon review, the Court reverses the Indiana Board's final determination.
In July of 2015, Chevrolet purchased a 4.050 acre parcel of vacant land in Columbus, Indiana for $1,763,130.00. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 74-76.) Chevrolet subsequently built an automotive sales and service facility on a portion of the land. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 34-35, 74.)
For purposes of the 2016 through 2018 tax years, the Bartholomew County Assessor classified 115,000 square feet of Chevrolet's land as "primary land," i.e., the land upon which the automotive facility was located, and 61,418 square feet as usable undeveloped land, i.e., vacant land held for future development. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 34, 36, 39.) See also REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR 2011 ("Guidelines") (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.4-1-2(c) (2011) (amended 2020)), Bk. 1, Ch. 2 at 65, 72. Ultimately, the Assessor assigned Chevrolet's property an assessed value of $1,734,600 for the 2016 tax year, $3,257,100 for the 2017 tax year, and $3,417,300 for the 2018 tax year. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 34-41, 144.)
On September 3, 2019, Chevrolet filed three appeals seeking to correct "[a] clerical, mathematical, or typographical" error in its land assessments for the 2016 through 2018 tax years. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 5 - 6, 11 - 12, 17 - 18.) On January 7, 2020, the Bartholomew County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals ("PTABOA") conducted a hearing on all three of Chevrolet's appeals. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 4.) One week later, the PTABOA notified Chevrolet that each appeal had been denied. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 3 - 4, 9 - 10, 15 - 16.)
On February 18, 2020, Chevrolet sought review with the Indiana Board, electing to have its appeals heard pursuant to the Indiana Board's small claims procedures. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 1 - 2.) On March 25, 2021, the Indiana Board conducted a hearing on the appeals during which Chevrolet claimed (via its tax representative) that for the 2016 through 2018 tax years, the county's land order1 established that primary land was to be assessed at $10 per square foot and usable undeveloped land at $3 per square foot. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 22-23, 135, 146, 149-51, 154.) Chevrolet maintained that contrary to that clear directive, its primary land was assessed at $13 per square foot in 2016 and 2017 and at $15 per square foot in 2018, while its usable undeveloped land was assessed at $3.90 per square foot in 2016 and 2017 and at $4.50 per square foot in 2018. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 150-51, 158.) To support its claim that its land was incorrectly assessed, Chevrolet presented several documents, including a copy of Bartholomew County's land order for the years at issue along with an email containing an excerpt of that land order. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 30-31, 61-67, 147-49.) Chevrolet explained that to correct the math errors in its land assessments it simply multiplied the square footage of its primary land (i.e., 115,000) and usable undeveloped land (i.e., 61,418) by the correct base rates ($10 and $3, respectively), added the products together, and arrived at land assessments of $1,334,300 for the years at issue. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 154, 169.)
In response, the Assessor asserted that Chevrolet's appeals should be denied because she used the actual base rates to value its land for the years at issue, and Chevrolet's evidence, an alleged copy of the Bartholomew County land order containing proposed base rates, did not show otherwise. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 146, 154-55, 160-65.) The Assessor presented several property record cards to demonstrate that between the 2012 and 2016 tax years she applied a base rate of $13 per square foot to all of the primary land in Chevrolet's "neighborhood" and a base rate of $3.90 per square foot to all usable undeveloped land. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 88-107, 160-61.) See also Guidelines, Bk. 2, Glossary at 16 (). In addition, the Assessor claimed that Chevrolet's correction of error appeals were untimely because they challenged the assessed value of its property, a purely subjective issue that was not proper for the correction of error appeal procedure. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 146-47, 155-57, 169.) The Assessor also requested that Chevrolet's 2016 assessment be increased from $1,734,500 to $1,763,130 to reflect its 2015 purchase price. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 160.)
On June 23, 2021, the Indiana Board issued its final determination finding Chevrolet's appeals for a correction of error were untimely filed. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 142 ¶ 29.) In so doing, the Indiana Board explained that "Chevrolet's request for relief plainly show[ed] that it was disputing [its land's] assessed value[s]" despite the fact that it "checked the box indicating that it was alleging a clerical, mathematical, or typographical mistake[.]" (See Cert. Admin. R. at 139-40 ¶ 17.) As such, the Indiana Board explained that Chevrolet was required to file its appeals within the 45-day statutory deadline for challenging a property's assessed value, not the three-year deadline applicable for challenging objective math errors. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 139-41 ¶¶ 16-25.) Consequently, the Indiana Board ordered the land assessments to remain unchanged, and did not address the merits of either Chevrolet's claims regarding the propriety of its 2016 through 2018 land assessments or the Assessor's claims about the authenticity of the Bartholomew County land order and Chevrolet's 2016 assessment. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 141-42 ¶¶ 26-29.)
On July 29, 2021, Chevrolet initiated this original tax appeal. After the matter was fully briefed on November 23, 2021, the Court took the case under advisement. Additional facts will be supplied when necessary.
The party seeking to reverse an Indiana Board final determination bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Hatke v. Potter, 173 N.E.3d 728, 729 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2021). Therefore, Chevrolet must demonstrate to the Court that the Indiana Board's final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of the procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence. See IND. CODE § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (2022).
When Chevrolet filed its three appeals for a correction of error with the PTABOA in 2019, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1.1(a) authorized taxpayers like Chevrolet to initiate appeals of real property assessments by filing a written notice on a form designated by the Department of Local Government Finance with their township or county assessor. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-1.1(a) (2019). (See also, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 5 - 6 (the "Taxpayer's Notice to Initiate an Appeal" ("Form 130")).) A taxpayer's appeal, with certain exceptions that do not apply in this case, could raise any claim of error related to the following:
See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-1.1(a), (e), (h).
The statute further provided that if a taxpayer appealed an assessment that occurred before January 1, 2019, on the basis that there was an error in the assessed value of its property, the appeal could be filed any time after the assessing official's action, but not later than the earlier of:
I.C. § 6-1.1-15-1.1(b)(1). If, however, the taxpayer appealed its assessment based on one or more of the objective errors listed under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1.1(a)(2)-(6), the appeal must be filed not later than three years after the taxes were first due. I.C. § 6-1.1-15-1.1(b). See also Square 74 Assocs. LLC, v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 138 N.E.3d 336, 340 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 2019) (); IND. CODE § 6-1.1-22-9(a) (2016) ().
On appeal, Chevrolet contends that the Indiana Board's final determination that its three correction of error appeals were filed untimely must be reversed given the Indiana Supreme Court's recent decision that the application of a base rate discount in a county land order was an objective error, not a subjective error regarding a property's assessed value. (See Pet'r Br. at 4-6 (citing Muir Woods Section One Ass'n, Inc. v. O'Connor, 172 N.E.3d 1205 (Ind. 2021) ).) Thus, Chevrolet asks the Court to remand this matter to...
To continue reading
Request your trial