Mills v. State Bd. of Tax Com'rs
| Decision Date | 07 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 82T10-9212-TA-00102,82T10-9212-TA-00102 |
| Citation | 639 N.E.2d 698 |
| Parties | Donald E. MILLS and Barbara C. Mills, Petitioners, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS; Vanderburgh County Board of Review and James Angermeier, Vanderburgh County Assessor, Respondents. |
| Court | Indiana Tax Court |
Leslie C. Shively, Noffsinger, Price, Bradley & Shively, Evansville, for petitioners.
Pamela Carter, Atty. Gen. of Indiana and Joel Schiff, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for respondent State Bd. of Tax Com'rs.
Dennis Brinkmeyer, Evansville, for respondents Vanderburgh County Bd. of Review and Vanderburgh County Assessor.
Donald E. Mills and Barbara C. Mills (the Millses) appeal the final determination of the State Board of Tax Commissioners (the State Board), assessing their residential real property for 1990. They also appeal changes made to their 1989 assessment by the Vanderburgh County Board of Review (the County Board) after March 26, 1991.
I. Whether the County Board's March 26, 1991, response was the County Board's final determination of the Millses' 1989 assessment.
II. Whether the State Board's final determination is unsupported by substantial evidence, constitutes an abuse of discretion,
exceeds statutory authority, or is arbitrary and capricious.
The Millses own residential real property consisting of a lot and a dwelling in Vanderburgh County, Evansville, Indiana. For the 1989 general reassessment, the Township Assessor assessed the Millses' real property at $80,170 ($8,470 for land and $71,700 for improvements).
The Township Assessor assigned a grade and design factor of "A-1" to the Millses' dwelling and calculated the Millses' assessment using the corresponding multiplier of 150%. See 50 I.A.C. 2.1-3-4(f). The Millses did not agree that the "A-1" grade and design factor was appropriate for their dwelling and filed a timely Form 130 Petition for Reassessment with the County Board. Their petition asserted that the proper grade and design factor was a "B" and that the assessment should have been calculated using the corresponding multiplier of 120%. See id.
On January 18, 1991, the County Board held a hearing on the Millses' Form 130, and on March 26, 1991, the County Board returned the Form 130 to the Millses. In section 4 of the Form 130, titled "County Board of Review Response to Petitioner's Claims," the County Board had inserted the words "Changes as Marked" and "Grade and Design 120%." Petitioners' Exhibit C. Because 120% is the multiplier used to calculate the assessed value of real property assigned a grade and design factor of "B," the Millses believed that the County Board had changed the grade and design factor of their property from an "A-1" to a "B," just as they requested.
On July 18, 1991, however, the Millses received a second response from the County Board informing them that the County Board had declined to make changes in their 1989 assessment. In addition, the response notified the Millses that the County Assessor had appealed the County Board's decision by filing a Form 131 Petition with the State Board for Review of Assessment. The Form 131 indicated that the Assessor had moved to lower the grade and design factor of the Millses' property pursuant to IND.CODE 6-1.1-13-2, but the other members of the County Board had rejected his motion.
On March 13, 1992, the State Board notified the Millses that it would hold a hearing on the Form 131 petition "for a redetermination of the assessment as of March 1, 1989." Petitioners' Exhibit F at 18. The hearing was held on March 24, 1992, but for some unexplained reason, evidence of the County Board's March 26, 1991, response was not presented to the State Board.
On April 13, 1992, while the State Board's final determination was pending, an employee of the County Assessor's Office changed the design and grade multiplier shown on the County Board's March 26, 1991 response to the Millses from 120% to 150%, thereby changing the grade and design factor from a "B" back to an "A-1." The Millses were not notified of this change.
On October 23, 1992, the State Board issued its final determination. The State Board determined that the Form 131 was not timely filed and, therefore, it declined to review the Millses' assessment on the basis of the Form 131. Nevertheless, the State Board invoked its authority to review and reassess the Millses' property sua sponte. The State Board determined that although the applicable limitations period prevented it from reviewing the Millses' 1989 assessment, the limitations period did not prevent it from reviewing the Millses' assessment for 1990 and subsequent years. Consequently, the State Board reviewed the Millses' assessment for 1990 and subsequent years and entered a final determination that the correct grade and design factor was an "A-1."
On December 7, 1992, the Millses appealed to this court both the State Board's final determination and the changes made to their 1989 assessment by the County Board after March 26, 1991. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
"The State Board is accorded great deference when acting within the scope of its authority." Wirth v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs (1993), Ind.Tax, 613 N.E.2d 874 876 (citing Centrium Group v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs (1992), Ind.Tax, 599 N.E.2d 242, 243). "Accordingly, this court will reverse a final determination by the State Board only when it is unsupported by substantial evidence, constitutes an abuse of discretion, exceeds statutory authority, or is arbitrary and capricious." Id. (citing Hatcher v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs (1992), Ind.Tax, 601 N.E.2d 19, 20). The Millses bear the burden to show that the State Board's assessment is inaccurate. See id. (citing Meridian Hills Country Club v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs (1987), Ind.Tax, 512 N.E.2d 911, 913).
The validity of the State Board's final determination turns on the resolution of questions surrounding the County Board's March 26, 1991, response to the Millses' Form 130. The court, therefore, will address the issue of the County Board's response first.
The Millses assert that the County Board's March 26, 1991, response to their Form 130 constituted a final determination by the County Board of their 1989 assessment. Further, they assert that changes made by the County Board to the grade and design factor after that date were without legal authority. The County Board argues, however, that the March 26, 1991, correspondence with the Millses was not a final determination; rather, it was merely a worksheet. The County Board also argues that the April 13, 1992 change made to the Millses' property grade and design factor was simply the correction of a typographical error.
Once a Form 130 is filed with the County Board, the County Board is required to notify the taxpayer of the date fixed for the hearing, hold a hearing, and then by mail, give notice of its determination to the taxpayer. IND.CODE 6-1.1-15-2.1. The County Board notified the Millses that it would hold a hearing on their Form 130. The hearing was held on January 18, 1991. On March 26, 1991, the County Board returned to the Millses a copy of their Form 130. In the section of the Form 130 titled "County Board of Review Response to Petitioner's Claims," the words "Changes as Marked" and "Grade and Design 120%" appeared. Petitioners' Exhibit C. The Form 130 was signed by the president of the County Board and attested to by the secretary of the County Board. Petitioners' Exhibit C. In addition, the Form 130 notified the Millses that if they did not agree with the County Board's assessment determination, they could appeal to the State Board by filing a Form 131 petition. 1
Administrative agency actions are "final orders" if they determine the rights of, or impose obligations on, the parties as a consummation of the administrative process. Downing v. Board of Zoning Appeals (1971), 149 Ind.App. 687, 691, 274 N.E.2d 542, 544-45. In this case, the administrative process at the county level was complete on March 26, 1991, as pursuant to I.C. 6-1.1-15-2.1, a hearing had been held and the Millses had been notified of the County Board's determination. Accordingly, the County Board's March 26, 1991, response was the County Board's final determination of the Millses' 1989 assessment. Thus, the Millses had a right to a "B" grade and design factor and the County Board had an obligation to calculate the assessed value of the Millses' property using the corresponding 120% multiplier.
Once the County Board issues a final determination on an assessment, it can make changes in that assessment only if it gives proper notice to the taxpayer under IND.CODE 6-1.1-13-1, 2 or if it files a timely appeal with the State Board under IND.CODE 6-1.1-15-3. 3 In this case, the County Board did neither. Nevertheless, the County Board argues that the April 13, 1992, change in the Millses' grade and design factor was merely a correction of a typographical error. Indeed, the County Assessor testified at trial that although the March 26, 1991, response to the Millses may have shown a grade and design multiplier of 120%, the assessed value of improvements, shown on the form as $64,970, was calculated using a grade and design factor of 150%. Trial Transcript at 49; Plaintiffs' Exhibit C.
The County Assessor's testimony, however, is inconsistent with the April 13, 1992, changes. On that date not only was the grade and design multiplier changed to 150%, but the assessed value of improvements also was changed from $64,970 to $66,370. Respondents' Exhibit 1. The April 13, 1992, change was an attempt to alter a grade and design factor reduction previously awarded to the Millses. In any event, the summary correction of a mathematical error in computing an assessment may be made only if the correction is first approved by at least three of the following officials: 1) the township...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lake County Council v. State Bd. of Tax Com'rs
...the rights of, or impos[ing] obligations on, the parties as a consummation of the administrative process." Mills v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 639 N.E.2d 698, 701 (Ind. Tax Ct.1994) (citing Downing v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 149 Ind.App. 687, 691, 274 N.E.2d 542, 544-45 (1971)). As the resp......
-
Lake County Council v. State Board of Tax Commissioners
... ... Mills v. State Bd. of Tax ... Comm’rs , 639 N.E.2d 698, 701 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1994) ... (citing Downing v. Board of Zoning Appeals , 149 ... ...
-
Scheub v. STATE BD. OF TAX COM'RS
...by State Board under section 6-1.1-14-11 is mandatory because it is included to protect taxpayer); Mills v. State Board of Tax Comm'rs, 639 N.E.2d 698, 703 (Ind. Tax Ct.1994) (noting importance of proper notice by State Board when conducting sua sponte review of taxpayer's assessment) (quot......
-
Matonovich v. State Bd. of Tax Com'rs
...to the Petitioners. See Bowman v. State Bd. of Nursing, 663 N.E.2d 1217, 1219 (Ind.Ct.App.1996); see also Mills v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 639 N.E.2d 698, 701 (Ind. Tax Ct.1994); Johnson County Plan Comm'n v. Ramshead Corp., 463 N.E.2d 295, 299-300 (Ind.Ct.App.1984). Consequently, this Co......