Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor
| Decision Date | 25 January 2019 |
| Docket Number | Cause No. 18T-TA-00014 |
| Parties | CONVENTION HEADQUARTERS HOTELS, LLC, Petitioner, v. MARION COUNTY ASSESSOR, Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Tax Court |
ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: DAVID A. SUESS, DANIEL R. ROY, BENJAMIN A. BLAIR, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Indianapolis, IN
ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: CURTIS T. HILL, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA, KELLY S. THOMPSON, ZACHARY D. PRICE, DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL, Indianapolis, IN
JESSICA R. GASTINEAU, SPECIAL COUNSEL-TAX LITIGATION OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL, Indianapolis, IN
ORDER ON APPEAL FROM THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW PURSUANT TO INDIANA CODE SECTIONS 6-1.1-15-4 AND 6-1.1-15-5
Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC (CHH) has appealed the assessment of its real property for the 2010 tax year, claiming it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Property Taxation and Equal Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Indiana's Constitution, and Indiana's market value-in-use standard. CHH also seeks an award of costs, fees, and expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988(b). As a threshold matter, however, the Court must determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over CHH's appeal.
CHH owns the JW Marriott Hotel located in downtown Indianapolis, Center Township, Marion County, Indiana. (Pet'r Pet. Judicial Review ("Pet'r Pet.") ¶¶ 6, 15.) On October 13, 2010, the Assessor mailed a Form 11 to CHH that increased its 2010 assessment from $ 18,479,100 to $ 86,987,100. (See Pet'r Pet. ¶¶ 7, 19, Ex. A at 2-3.) On November 24, 2010, CHH filed a Form 130 Notice to Initiate an Appeal with the Marion County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA). (See Pet'r Pet. ¶ 21.) The PTABOA, however, took no action on CHH's Form 130. (Pet'r Pet. ¶ 22.)
Nearly seven years later, on June 6, 2017, CHH filed a Form 131 Petition for Review with the Indiana Board of Tax Review ("Form 131 petition").1 The Indiana Board assigned a specific petition number to CHH's Form 131 but, like the PTABOA, took no further action on CHH's assessment challenge. (See Pet'r Pet. ¶¶ 7, 10-11.)
On May 1, 2018, CHH filed a "Petition for Judicial Review" ("Petition") with the Tax Court, alleging that the Court had subject matter jurisdiction over its appeal because it arose under Indiana's tax laws. (See Pet'r Pet. ¶¶ 4, 10-11.) CHH also alleged that its appeal was properly before the Court pursuant to Indiana Code §§ 33-26-3-1, 33-26-3-2, 6-1.1-15-4, and 6-1.1-15-5. (See Pet'r Pet. ¶¶ 4, 8, 10-13.)
On June 4, 2018, after holding a case management conference, the Court ordered the parties sua sponte to file briefs on the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. That same day, however, the Assessor notified the Court that he had caused the case to be removed to federal court. On August 29, 2018, after the federal court remanded the case to the Tax Court, the parties filed an "Agreed Motion for Briefing Schedule" on the question of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court granted their Motion the next day, ordering them to file simultaneous briefs on October 12, 2018, and simultaneous response briefs on October 19, 2018.2
Subject matter jurisdiction, the power of a court to hear and determine a particular class of cases, can only be conferred upon a court by the Indiana Constitution or by statute. Grandville Co-op., Inc. v. O'Connor, 25 N.E.3d 833, 836 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015). Consequently, the " ‘[t]he only relevant inquiry in determining whether any court has [ ] subject matter jurisdiction is to ask whether the kind of claim which the plaintiff advances falls within the general scope of the authority conferred upon [the] court by the constitution or by statute.’ " Marion Cty. Auditor v. State, 33 N.E.3d 398, 400-01 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (quoting Pivarnik v. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co., 636 N.E.2d 131, 137 (Ind. 1994) ).
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. IND. CODE § 33-26-3-1 (2018). Its enabling legislation gives the Tax Court "exclusive jurisdiction over any case that arises under the tax laws of Indiana and that is an initial appeal of a final determination made by" the Indiana Board. I.C. § 33-26-3-1. The Tax Court also has "any other jurisdiction conferred by statute[.]" IND. CODE § 33-26-3-2 (2018). See also IND. CODE § 33-26-3-3 (2018) ().
The sole issue before the Court is whether it has subject matter jurisdiction to hear CHH's appeal.3 Specifically, the Court must determine whether the Indiana Board's failure to hold a hearing or provide notice of its final determination in this matter gave CHH the right to a direct appeal to the Tax Court, thereby conferring subject matter jurisdiction, under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15.
CHH claims that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over its case because together Indiana Code §§ 6-1.1-15-5 and 6-1.1-15-4 indicate that the Legislature intended to give taxpayers the discretion to proceed to the Tax Court when the Indiana Board fails to comply with its mandatory deadlines for holding hearings or issuing final determinations. (See Pet'r Br. Regarding Ct.'s Jurisdiction ("Pet'r Br.") at 3-7.) Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(g) states:
If the maximum time elapses for the Indiana board to give notice of its final determination under ... section 4 of this chapter, a party may initiate a proceeding for judicial review by taking the action required by subsection (b) at any time after the maximum time elapses.
IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-5(g) (2017) (emphases added). Moreover, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-4 states:
IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-4(i) (2017). Accordingly, the Court must determine whether Indiana Code §§ 6-1.1-15-5 and 6-1.1-15-4 confer subject matter jurisdiction over CHH's appeal.
Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-4 sets forth various procedures for the Indiana Board to follow when it reviews a taxpayer's assessment appeal. See generally I.C. § 6-1.1-15-4. The statute provides that "the Indiana board shall conduct a hearing not later than nine (9) months after a petition in proper form is filed with the Indiana board[.]" I.C. § 6-1.1-15-4(e). The statute further provides that "[t]he Indiana board shall make a [final] determination not later than the later of: (1) ninety (90) days after the hearing; or (2) the date set in an extension order issued by the Indiana board." I.C. § 6-1.1-15-4(g). "If the Indiana board fails to make a final determination within the time allowed by this section, [however,] the entity that initiated the petition may: (1) take no action and wait for the Indiana board to make a final determination; or (2) petition for judicial review under section 5 of this chapter." I.C. § 6-1.1-15-4(i). Accordingly, if the Indiana Board fails to issue its final determination before "the maximum time elapses" within the statutory timeframe, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(g) permits the taxpayer to access the Tax Court's jurisdiction. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(g).
The question whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over CHH's case pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(g) depends on when "the maximum time elapses for the Indiana board to give notice of its final determination" under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-4. CHH has argued that the Court has jurisdiction over this case because the maximum time elapses when the Indiana Board fails to comply with the 9-month deadline for holding a hearing as required under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-4(e). (See Pet'r Br. at 5.) Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(d) expressly states, however, that "[t]he failure of the Indiana board to conduct a hearing within the period prescribed in section 4(e) or 4(f) ... does not constitute notice to the party of an Indiana board final determination." I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(d) (emphasis added).
Conversely, the Assessor claims that because Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-4(g) indicates that the period for giving notice starts after the Indiana Board conducts its hearing (if it elects to hold one), judicial review is unavailable until the Indiana Board actually holds a hearing or issues a final determination. (See Resp't Br. at 4-6 (filed 10/12/2018 1:08 PM); Resp't Reply Br. at 1-2 (filed 10/19/2018 2:55 PM).) Consequently, the Assessor argues that CHH's failure to exhaust its administrative remedies by obtaining a final determination from the Indiana Board has deprived the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.4 (See Resp't Br. at 2-3, 6-7 (filed 10/12/2018 1:08 PM).)
Neither of the parties' statutory constructions give full effect to the meaning of the phrase "the maximum time elapsed." The primary goal of statutory construction is to determine and implement the intent of the Legislature in enacting the statute. See Hamilton Square Inv., LLC v. Hamilton Cty. Assessor, 60 N.E.3d 313, 317 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2016), review denied. The best evidence of this intent is found in the plain language of the statute itself, as chosen by the Legislature. See id.
Here, the statutory language plainly states that the Indiana Board is required to conduct a hearing at its earliest opportunity, but no later than 9 months after a proper petition for review is filed. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-4(a), (e). In turn, the Indiana Board must make a determination no later than 90 days after the hearing is held. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-4(g)(1). Accordingly, the "maximum time" that the Indiana Board has to give notice of its final determination, as defined in Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-4, is the 9 months for conducting a hearing plus the 90 days thereafter that it has to issue its final...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor
...eleven months, the Indiana Board still had not issued its final determination. See Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor (CHH I ), 119 N.E.3d 245, 246-47 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019). As a result, Convention HQ tried to transition its appeal to this Court on two separate occas......
-
Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor
...of Indiana's Constitution, and Indiana's market value-in-use standard. See Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cty. Assessor (Convention Headquarters I ), 119 N.E.3d 245, 246-47 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019). On January 25, 2019, the Court dismissed CHH's appeal for lack of subject matter j......
-
Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion County Assessor, 19T-TA-00021
...and Indiana's market value-in-use standard. See Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cty. Assessor (Convention Headquarters I), 119 N.E.3d 245, 246-47 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019). On January 25, 2019, the Court dismissed CHH's appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, concluding it w......
-
Convention Headquarters Hotels, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor
...direct appeal with this Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See generally Convention Headquarters Hotels v. Marion Cty. Assessor (Convention Headquarters I ), 119 N.E.3d 245 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019). In that case, the Court held that even though Indiana Code §§ 6-1.1-15-4(i)(2) and 6-......