Muir Woods, Inc. v. O'Connor

• Decision Date: 18 June 2015
• Docket Number: No. 49T10–1302–TA–38.,49T10–1302–TA–38.
• Parties: MUIR WOODS, INC., Petitioner, v. Joseph P. O'CONNOR, Assessor of Marion County, Respondent.
• Court: Indiana Tax Court

36 N.E.3d 1208

MUIR WOODS, INC.¹ Petitioner

v.Joseph P. O'CONNOR, Assessor of Marion County, Respondent.

No. 49T10–1302–TA–38.

Tax Court of Indiana.

June 18, 2015.

James K. Gilday, Gilday & Associates, P.C., Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Petitioner.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Evan W. Bartel, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Respondent.

Opinion

WENTWORTH, J.

This case concerns whether the Indiana Board of Tax Review erred when it dismissed Muir Woods Inc.'s Petitions For Correction Of An Error (Forms 133) because the forms alleged errors not correctable under that appeal procedure. The Court affirms.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Muir Woods is the homeowners' association of a planned unit development in Indianapolis. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 11, 653.) On July 9, 2009, Muir Woods filed two Forms 133 with the Marion County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA) asserting that the property taxes arising from 2004 and 2005 assessments of its common area land were illegal as a matter of law. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 6 –11.) The PTABOA denied the Forms 133.

Muir Woods subsequently filed two Petitions for Review (Forms 131) with the Indiana Board, attaching the Forms 133 that were denied by the PTABOA. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 3 –17.) Muir Woods again claimed that its property taxes were illegal as a matter of law. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 16 –17.) Additionally, Muir Woods claimed that the Marion County Assessor failed to adjust the base rate of its common area land. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 17.)

On January 13, 2012, the Indiana Board issued an Order To Show Cause Why Petitions Should Not Be Dismissed On Grounds That They Allege Errors In Subjective Judgment (Show Cause Order). (See Cert. Admin. R. at 73–79.) The Show Cause Order stated that the Indiana Board may dismiss Muir Woods's case unless it showed that its claims were “properly brought on Form 133 petitions, or, alternatively that it complied with the [ ] appeal procedure's deadlines and other requirements[.]” (See Cert. Admin. R. at 77.)

On March 30, 2012, Muir Woods submitted its written response, and on August 29, 2012, the Indiana Board held a hearing on the Show Cause Order.² (See Cert. Admin. R. at 128–41, 651–70.) On December 28, 2012, the Indiana Board dismissed Muir Woods's case, stating that Muir Woods “alleged errors that are not correctable using the Form 133 process[.]” (See Cert. Admin. R. at 345.)

On February 11, 2013, Muir Woods initiated an original tax appeal. The Court conducted oral argument on December 6, 2013. Additional facts will be supplied when necessary.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court gives great deference to final determinations of the Indiana Board when it acts within the scope of its authority. Will's Far–Go Coach Sales v. Nusbaum, 847 N.E.2d 1074, 1076 (Ind. Tax Ct.2006). Therefore, the Court will reverse a final determination of the Indiana Board only if it is:

(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;

(3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations;

(4) without observance of procedure required by law; or

(5) unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence.

Ind.Code § 33–26–6–6(e)(1)–(5) (2015). The party seeking to overturn the Indiana Board's final determination bears the burden of establishing its invalidity. Osolo Twp. Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane Assocs., 789 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. Tax Ct.2003).

LAW

In 2009, a taxpayer had two avenues to appeal a property tax assessment. First, a taxpayer could appeal its current year's assessment by filing a Petition For Review Of Assessment By Local Assessing Official (Form 130). See Ind.Code § 6–1.1–15–1 (2009) (amended 2011). See also, e.g., Form 130, available at http://www.in.gov/dlgf/8516.htm. A Form 130 must be filed with the local property tax authority by May 10 or 45 days from the date the county treasurer mailed the tax statement, whichever is later. See I.C. § 6–1.1–15–1(d) (stating the time for filing when no notice of assessment has been issued). If the local property tax authority denied the requested relief, the taxpayer had 45 days from that determination to seek the Indiana Board's review by filing a Form 131. See Ind.Code § 6–1.1–15–3 (2009). See also 52 Ind. Admin. Code 2–4–2(a) (2009) (see http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/).

A taxpayer could use a second appeal procedure to challenge a property tax assessment by filing a Form 133. See Ind.Code § 6–1.1–15–12 (2009) (amended 2011). (See also, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 6 –9.) In comparison to the short filing deadline of the Form 130/131 appeal procedure, the Form 133 appeal procedure during the years at issue could be used at the time of this appeal anytime within three years of the date the taxes were first due. See Will's Far–Go Coach Sales, 847 N.E.2d at 1077. But see Hutcherson v. Ward, 2 N.E.3d 138, 142 (Ind. Tax Ct.2013) (explaining in 2013 that the Form 133 appeal procedure was not restricted by a time limitation). Moreover, the types of errors that are correctable using a Form 133 appeal procedure are expressly limited; whereas, the types of errors correctable using a Form 130/131 appeal procedure are not. See Bender v. Indiana State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 676 N.E.2d 1113, 1114 (Ind. Tax Ct.1997). Specifically, the Form 133 addresses three types of errors, i.e., (1) the taxes were illegal as a matter of law, (2) there was a mathematical error in computing an assessment, or (3) through an error or omission by the county official, the taxpayer was not given credit for an exemption or deduction permitted by law. See Form 133, available at http://www.in.gov/dlgf/8516.htm. In addition, errors susceptible to correction by using a Form 133 appeal procedure are objective errors, not errors that require subjective judgments to be corrected. See Hatcher v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 561 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. Tax Ct.1990).

ANALYSIS

Muir Woods asks the Court to reverse the Indiana Board's final determination for three reasons. First, Muir Woods contends that the Indiana Board had no legal authority to raise matters for dismissal sua sponte. Second, Muir Woods claims that before the Indiana Board could dismiss its case, it was required to conduct a full evidentiary hearing. Third, Muir Woods claims that the Indiana Board erred in dismissing its case because the errors in its assessments were susceptible to correction under the Form 133 appeal procedure.

I.

On appeal, Muir Woods first contends that the Indiana Board failed to identify any authority permitting it to issue the Show Cause Order sua sponte and, as a result, dismiss its case. (See V. Pet. Judicial Review Final Determination Dismissing Appeal Pets. Ind. Bd. Tax Review (Pet'r Pet.) at 5 ¶ 22; Pet'r Br. Supp. V. Pet. Judicial Review (Pet'r Br.) at 16–19.) Although the Indiana Board did not identify the authority it relied upon to inquire whether Muir Woods's case should be dismissed, its regulations state:

(a) The board may issue an order of default or dismissal as the result of:

(1) failure of the petitioner to state a claim on which relief can be granted;

....

(b) The board may issue an order of default or dismissal on motion of a party or on its own motion.

See 52 Ind. Admin. Code 2–10–2(a)(1), (b) (2012) (emphasis added) (see http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/). The Indiana Board could dismiss a case sua sponte; therefore, it necessarily had the authority to determine whether it should dismiss Muir Woods's case by issuing the Show Cause Order sua sponte. Consequently, the Indiana Board acted within its authority when it issued the Show Cause Order sua sponte.

II.

Second, Muir Woods claims that before the Indiana Board could dismiss its case, it was required to conduct a full evidentiary hearing pursuant to Indiana Code § 6–1.1–15–4(a). (See Pet'r Br. at 16–17.) Muir Woods asserts that the Indiana Board did not comply with that requirement. (See Pet'r Br. at 16–17.)

Indiana Code § 6–1.1–15–4(a) states that “[a]fter receiving a petition for review ... the Indiana board shall conduct a hearing at its earliest opportunity. The Indiana board may correct any errors that may have been made and adjust the assessment ... in accordance with the correction.” See Ind.Code § 6–1.1–15–4(a).³ The plain language of this statute requires a hearing before the Indiana Board may “correct any errors.” See Johnson Cnty. Farm Bureau Coop. Ass'n, v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 568 N.E.2d 578, 581 (Ind. Tax Ct.1991) aff'd, 585 N.E.2d 1336 (Ind.1992) (indicating that the Court gives words their plain and ordinary meaning as found in the dictionary). As used in this statute, however, the term “correct any errors” cannot include a dismissal because a correction of an error requires a determination on the merits, while a dismissal stops a case from proceeding to the underlying merits. See Couch v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals,

609 N.E.2d 39, 41 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (explaining that a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted decides a cause of action without reaching the merits). Nonetheless, even if the dismissal of a case is a type of correction of error contemplated by Indiana Code § 6–1.1–15–4(a), the Indiana Board complied with the hearing requirement because it provided Muir Woods the opportunity to present evidence and argument both prior to and at the Show Cause Hearing. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 77, 651–70.) Accordingly, Muir Woods does not succeed with its second argument.

III.

Third, Muir Woods contends that the Indiana Board erred when it determined that its use of the Form 133 appeal procedure was not the proper avenue to assert its claims that the assessment of its common area land was illegal as a matter of law. Indeed, Muir Woods asserts that the Form 133 appeal procedure was proper because: A) the Indiana...