Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Com'rs

• Decision Date: 12 September 1979
• Docket Number: STOKELY-VAN,No. 1-1078A275,1-1078A275
• Citation: 182 Ind.App. 91,394 N.E.2d 209
• Parties: CAMP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 209

394 N.E.2d 209

182 Ind.App. 91

STOKELY-VAN CAMP, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COMMISSIONERS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1-1078A275.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.

Sept. 12, 1979.

On Rehearing Oct. 29, 1979.

Richard E. Deer and Rodney A. Nowland, Barnes, Hickam, Pantzer & Boyd, Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Joel Schiff, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for defendant-appellee.

ROBERTSON, Judge.

The State Board of Tax Commissioners (Board), apparently on its own motion and under statutory authority of Ind.Code 6-1.1-14-10, reviewed the business personal property assessment of Stokely-Van Camp, Inc. (Stokely) in various counties in the State. At issue was whether Stokely could take a statutory tax advantage in the form of a 1/12 valuation instead of a 1/3 valuation as a first processer of perishable horticultural products under IC 6-1.1-3-13. Also at issue was whether Stokely could avoid paying taxes on part of the value of their truck fleet on the theory that the fleet is used out-of-state and thus the value must be allocated or be in conflict with the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.

The Board, again following statutory procedure (IC 6-1.1-14-11), sent notice of the review and a hearing date to Stokely. Stokely, by letter, requested that the hearing be held at Stokely's offices because of the inconvenience of bringing the books and records to the Board's offices. The State agreed and an "examining officer" (accountant) went to Stokely a number of times to examine the books. Apparently Stokely became aware through these encounters that the Board had taken the position that the tax advantage for horticultural products would apply only to products commercially grown and processed in this State. ¹ Stokely requested and got an additional hearing in order to counter this interpretation of the statute. The hearing was held; however, there is no transcript of the proceeding beyond a very brief written summary by the hearing officer. The Board sent out its final determination soon thereafter not allowing the special valuation. No written findings or reasons were given by the Board for its determination.

Following the statutory procedure (IC 6-1.1-15-5), Stokely appealed to the circuit court in Johnson County. The trial court, on authority of State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Stone City Plaza, Inc., (1974) 161 Ind.App. 627, 317 N.E.2d 182, limited the introduction of evidence to a review of what the Board considered. Thus, Stokely was not allowed to supplement the record with its experts. The only evidence presented at trial was the Board's reasoning for the disallowance of the special valuation. The trial court found for the State and this appeal followed.

Because of our disposition, we need address only one issue and that is whether written findings are necessary by the Board after a hearing before that body. The statute under which the Board was conducting its reassessment, IC 6-1.1-14-11, does not explicitly provide for the requirement of written findings as does the procedure for review of an assessment through the auditor and Board found in IC 6-1.1-15-4. ² We further note that the Board is explicitly excluded in IC 4-22-1-2 from the procedural requirements of the Administrative Adjudication Act. There is, however, ample authority for the concept that written findings should be required, regardless of whether the statute requires it. In Indiana, this holding has been made for zoning boards (Carlton v. Board of Zoning Appeals, (1969) 252 Ind. 56, 245 N.E.2d 337, 343), for employee merit boards (Yunker v. Porter County Sheriff's Merit Board, (1978) Ind.App., 382 N.E.2d 977, 983), for the industrial boards (Delaware Machinery & Tool Co. v. Yates, (1973) 158 Ind.App. 167, 301 N.E.2d 857), and in dictum for All administrative agencies. Hawley v. South Bend Department of Redevelopment, (1978) Ind., 383 N.E.2d 333, 336.

Davis succinctly sets forth the reasons for this requirement in his treatise:

The practical reasons for requiring administrative findings are so powerful that the requirement has been imposed with remarkable uniformity by virtually all federal and state courts, irrespective of a statutory requirement. The reasons have to do with facilitating judicial review, avoiding judicial usurpation of administrative consideration, helping parties plan their cases for rehearings and judicial review, and keeping agencies within their jurisdiction.

K. Davis, Administrative Law Text, § 16.03 (2d ed. 1972).

In Indiana, it is clear that the scope of review of the trial court in a Board case is...