Wash. Twp. Assessor v. Verizon Data Servs., Inc.
| Decision Date | 30 October 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 49T10–1102–TA–00013.,49T10–1102–TA–00013. |
| Citation | 43 N.E.3d 697 |
| Parties | WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR, Allen County Assessor, and Allen County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, Petitioners, v. VERIZON DATA SERVICES, INC., Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Tax Court |
Mark E. Giaquinta, Melanie L. Farr, Sarah L. Schreiber, Haller & Colvin, P.C., Fort Wayne, IN, Attorneys for Petitioners.
Marilyn S. Meighen, Attorney at Law, Carmel, IN, John S. Dull, Board of Commissioners of Lake County, Crown Point, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae.
Jeffrey T. Bennett, Bradley D. Hasler, Margaret M. Christensen, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Respondent.
WENTWORTH
, J.
The Washington Township Assessor, the Allen County Assessor, and the Allen County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (collectively Allen County) claim that the Indiana Board of Tax Review erred in granting summary judgment to Verizon Data Services, Inc. because the Allen County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA) failed to issue its final determination within the statutorily prescribed period. Upon review, the Court finds that the Indiana Board did not err.1
On May 15, 2005, Verizon filed its Business Tangible Personal Property Return with the Washington Township Assessor, reporting the assessed value of its personal property at $21 million for the 2005 tax year. On September 15, 2005, the Township Assessor issued a Notice of Assessment/Change (Form 113/PP) to Verizon that increased the 2005 personal property assessment to nearly $58 million.
On October 28, 2005, Verizon informed the Township Assessor that it was seeking review of the Form 113/PP with the PTABOA pursuant to Indiana Code § 6–1.1–15–1
and that the Township Assessor should contact its attorneys to schedule a preliminary conference. When the Township Assessor contacted one of Verizon's attorneys, he requested that the conference be scheduled at a time that allowed Verizon's representatives to appear in person. The Township Assessor and Verizon ultimately held the preliminary conference on July 12, 2006. When the two parties were unable to reach an agreement, one of Verizon's attorneys requested that the PTABOA hearing not be held until certain matters could be discussed with his client.
On October 26, 2006, the PTABOA held a hearing. On May 7, 2007, the PTABOA issued a Notification of Final Assessment Determination (Form 115) that reduced Verizon's personal property assessment to $50,777,790 for the 2005 tax year.
On June 11, 2007, Verizon appealed to the Indiana Board, asserting that certain statutory and constitutional valuation provisions required its personal property assessment to be further reduced. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 3
–29.) On January 29, 2009, Verizon moved for summary judgment on the sole issue that the PTABOA's Form 115 was untimely because it should have been issued by October 30, 2005, pursuant to Indiana Code §§ 6–1.1–16–1 to –4 (Chapter 16). (See Cert. Admin. R. at 185–89, 407–08.) On April 13, 2009, Allen County filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asserting that the PTABOA's Form 115 was timely because Indiana Code § 6–1.1–15–1 's (Section 15–1) deadlines applied, not Chapter 16's deadlines. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 225–34, 355–62.) Alternatively, Allen County argued that the doctrines of waiver and estoppel prevented the Chapter 16 deadlines from being invoked. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 233–34.) On December 28, 2010, after conducting a hearing, the Indiana Board issued its final determination granting summary judgment in favor of Verizon and against Allen County.
On February 9, 2011, Allen County initiated this original tax appeal. The Court heard oral argument on February 5, 2014. Additional facts will be supplied if necessary.
The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination bears the burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Hubler Realty Co. v. Hendricks Cnty. Assessor, 938 N.E.2d 311, 313 (Ind.Tax Ct.2010)
. The Court will reverse a final determination if it 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. Ind.Code § 33–26–6–6(e)(1)–(5) (2015)
.
On appeal, Allen County claims that the Indiana Board erred in determining that as a matter of law the Chapter 16 deadlines rather than the Section 15–1 deadlines applied to the PTABOA's appeals process. Alternatively, Allen County claims that the Indiana Board erred in determining there was no genuine issue of material fact whether Verizon waived or was estopped from asserting that the Chapter 16 deadlines applied.
During the 2005 tax year, Section 15–1 provided that when a taxpayer appealed an assessment of tangible property by a township official, the county property tax assessment board of appeals must hold a hearing “not later than one hundred eighty (180) days” after the taxpayer filed a written request for, and attended, a preliminary conference with the township official. See Ind.Code § 6–1.1–15–1(a)
, (b), (f), (k) (2005) (amended 2006). After the hearing, Section 15–1 required the county property tax assessment board of appeals to prepare a written decision “not later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the hearing.” See I.C. § 6–1.1–15–1(k).
Chapter 16 provided the time period within which “an assessing official, county assessor, or county property tax assessment board of appeals may [ ] change the assessed value claimed by a taxpayer on a personal personal property return[.]” Ind.Code § 6–1.1–16–1(a)(1) (2005)
(amended 2006). Moreover, Chapter 16 further provided that:
[a] county assessor or county property tax assessment board of appeals must make a change in the assessed value [claimed by a taxpayer on a personal property return], including the final determination by the board of an assessment changed by a township or county assessing official, or county property tax assessment board of appeals, and give the notice of the change [as required by Indiana Code § 6–1.1–3–20
] on or before the latter of:
(emphasis added).2
Allen County contends that the deadlines provided in Section 15–1 applied to the PTABOA's issuance of the Form 115 because Section 15–1 generally governs all appeals and the PTABOA was acting as a quasi-adjudicator under Section 15–1 when it reduced Verizon's personal property assessment in 2007. (See Pet'rs' Br. Supp. V. Pet. Judicial Review Final Determination [Indiana Board] (“Pet'rs' Br.”) at 8–11.) Furthermore, Allen County explains that Chapter 16 governs its actions not in the context of an appeal, but only when it acts in its role as an assessing official.3 (See Pet'rs' Br. at 9–13.)
Chapter 16 applies and its deadlines are triggered when, as here, an assessor, the county property tax assessment board of appeals, or the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) changes the assessed value claimed by a taxpayer on its personal property return.4 See I.C. § 6–1–1–16–1(a)(1)–(3). Nonetheless, the plain language of Chapter 16 does not indicate that it applies solely to the assessment process as Allen County urges. Instead, Chapter 16 specifically states certain deadlines not only apply to when an assessor or county property tax assessment board of appeals must make a change to a personal property assessment, but also apply to when the county property tax assessment board of appeals must issue its “final determination ... of an assessment changed by a township or county assessing official.” See I.C. § 6–1.1–16–1(a)(2)
(emphasis added).
State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs v. Ispat Inland, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 477, 481 (Ind.2003) (emphases added) (citation omitted). See also
Mills v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 639 N.E.2d 698, 701 (Ind.Tax Ct.1994) (). Thus, Allen County's contention that the term “final determination” in Chapter 16 refers solely to the end of the assessment process conflicts with its common meaning that refers to the culmination of the administrative appeals process.
Furthermore, the view that Chapter 16 applies just to the assessment process is dashed by the provisions of Chapter 16 that specifically provide appeal procedures. See Board of Comm'rs of Jasper Cnty. v. Vincent, 988 N.E.2d 1280, 1282 (Ind.Tax Ct.2013)
(). For example, Indiana Code § 6–1.1–16–2 provides an appeal procedure for use by a township or county assessor in the event a county property tax assessment board of appeals fails to act within the statutorily prescribed periods. See Ind.Code § 6–1.1–16–2 (2005) (amended 2007). In addition, Indiana Code § 6–1.1–16–1(e) provides a procedure for a taxpayer to appeal the DLGF's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen Cnty. Assessor v. Verizon Data Servs., Inc.
...assessment process, but also to the appeals process. See Washington Tow. Assessor v. Verizon Data Servs., Inc. (Verizon I ), No. 49T10–1102–TA–00013, 43 N.E.3d 697, 699–703, 2015 WL 6638847, at **2–5 (Ind.Tax Ct. Oct. 30, 2015). Accordingly, the Indiana Board did not err in determining that......
- Morris v. State
-
Kosciusko Cnty. Assessor v. Dalton Corp.
...Br. at 9-19.) In addition, the Assessor raises many of the same arguments made and resolved in Washington Township Assessor v. Verizon Data Services, Inc., 43 N.E.3d 697 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015), review denied (" Verizon I") and Allen County Assessor v. Verizon Data Services, Inc., 43 N.E.3d 705......