Wells Cnty. Assessor v. Alexin, LLC
| Decision Date | 31 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 49T10–1501–TA–00003.,49T10–1501–TA–00003. |
| Parties | WELLS COUNTY ASSESSOR, Petitioner, v. ALEXIN, LLC, Respondent. |
| Court | Indiana Tax Court |
Brian A. Cusimano, Jeffrey D. Collins, Attorneys at Law, Indianapolis, IN, Marilyn S. Meighen, Attorney at Law, Carmel, IN, Attorneys for Petitioner.
Randal J. Kaltenmark, Zia Mollabashy, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Respondent.
WENTWORTH
, J.
This case examines the Indiana Board of Tax Review's final determination that the Common Council of the City of Bluffton (Council) waived Alexin, LLC's non-compliance with certain statutory requirements for its 2013 personal property tax abatement deduction. Upon review, the Court finds that the Indiana Board's final determination is contrary to law.1
Alexin operates an aluminum production/manufacturing business in an area of Wells County, Indiana that the Council designated as an economic revitalization area. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 53, 75, 77.) Prior to 2013, the Council granted Alexin a ten-year abatement of taxes on its personal property. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 75, 77.) To claim its tax abatement deduction in 2013, Alexin's CPA prepared, among other things, its Business Tangible Personal Property Assessment Return, three Compliance With Statement of Benefits Personal Property forms (Forms CF–1), and a Schedule Of Deduction From Assessed Valuation Personal Property In Economic Revitalization Area form (Form 103–ERA). (See Cert. Admin. R. at 56–62, 64–70, 75–76, 79.) Due to an administrative oversight, however, Alexin did not timely file any of its tax abatement forms with the Wells County Assessor. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 77, 79.) As a result, the Assessor issued a Notice of Assessment Change to Alexin that disallowed its 2013 tax abatement deduction.
On August 10, 2013, Alexin filed an appeal with the Wells County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA). While that appeal was pending, Alexin asked the Council to issue a resolution that waived “the late filing of [its] personal property [tax] abatement forms.” (See Cert. Admin. R. at 79.) On September 3, 2013, after holding a public hearing, the Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2013–9 pursuant to Indiana Code § 6–1.1–12.1–9.5
and § 6–1.1–12.1–11.3, which provided that “Alexin's former non-compliance with respect to the timing of the filing of the [Forms CF–1] ... is waived and the [Forms CF–1] as filed should be and are hereby approved[.]” (See Cert. Admin. R. at 78.) On September 27, 2013, the PTABOA issued a final determination, upholding the Assessor's disallowance of Alexin's 2013 tax abatement deduction.
On October 15, 2013, Alexin appealed to the Indiana Board. On September 18, 2014, the Indiana Board conducted a hearing on Alexin's appeal during which Alexin claimed that its 2013 tax abatement deduction should be reinstated because the Council had waived the untimeliness of its Forms CF–1 in Resolution 2013–9. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 135–36, 138–42.) The Assessor, on the other hand, argued that Alexin was not entitled to the tax abatement deduction because the Council lacked the statutory authority to waive Alexin's act of non-compliance. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 143–50.) The Assessor also claimed that Alexin was not entitled to the deduction because Resolution 2013–9 only waived Alexin's non-compliance regarding its Forms CF–1, not regarding its personal property tax return. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 147–49.) On December 17, 2014, the Indiana Board issued its final determination reinstating Alexin's 2013 tax abatement deduction based on its conclusion that “[t]he Council [had] acted within its [statutory] authority in passing a resolution waiving [Alexin's] non-compliance.” (See Cert. Admin. R. at 23.)
On January 30, 2015, Alexin initiated this original tax appeal. The Court heard oral argument on November 20, 2015. 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).
An “economic revitalization area” is:
an area which is within the corporate limits of a city, town, or county which has become undesirable for, or impossible of, normal development and occupancy because of a lack of development, cessation of growth, deterioration of improvements or character of occupancy, age, obsolescence, substandard buildings, or other factors which have impaired values or prevent a normal development of property or use of property.
Ind.Code § 6–1.1–12.1–1(1) (2015)
. The term also includes (1) “any area where a facility or a group of facilities that are technologically, economically, or energy obsolete are located and where the obsolescence may lead to a decline in employment and tax revenues; and [2] a residentially distressed area, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” I.C. § 6–1.1–12.1–1(1). Tax abatements are available for certain tangible personal property within a designated economic revitalization area. See generally Ind.Code §§ 6–1.1–12.1–0.3 to –17 (2015).
See Ind.Code § 6–1.1–12.1–5.4(a) (2013)
(amended 2015). (See also e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 101–02 (Alexin's Form 103– ERA).) The person must also file a Form CF–1 with the county auditor and the designating body that shows whether there has been compliance with the statement of benefits approved under Indiana Code § 6–1.1–12.1–4.5
. See Ind.Code § 6–1.1–12.1–5.6 (2013) ; Ind.Code § 6–1.1–12.1–1(7) (2013) (defining a “designating body”). (See also, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 67–68 (Alexin's Form CF–1).) In the event one fails to follow these statutory procedures, the designating body may issue a resolution either before conducting a public hearing under Indiana Code § 6–1.1–12.1–9.5 (Section 9.5) or after holding a hearing under Indiana Code § 6–1.1–12.1–11.3 (Section 11.3) that waives the person's non-compliance. See Ind.Code §§ 6–1.1–12.1–9.5, –11.5 (2013).
The issue before the Court is whether the Indiana Board's final determination that the Council waived Alexin's non-compliance with certain statutory requirements for its 2013 personal property tax abatement deduction is contrary to law. The parties' written briefs and oral arguments indicate that the resolution of this issue depends on the answers to the following two questions: (1) whether the Council had the statutory authority to waive Alexin's untimely filed personal property tax return under Section 9.5;2 and, if so, (2) whether the Council actually waived Alexin's untimely filed personal property tax return in Resolution 2013–9.3
(1)
(emphasis added).
The plain language of Section 9.5 authorized the Council to issue a resolution that waived Alexin's failure to comply with the filing deadlines for any documents that were required to be filed under Chapter 12.1. See I.C. § 6–1.1–12.1–9.5(b)(1)
City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612, 618 (Ind.2007) (). In turn, Indiana Code § 6–1.1–12.1–5.4
required Alexin to file both a personal property tax return and a Form 103–ERA annually to obtain its 2013 tax abatement deduction. See I.C. § 6–1.1–12.1–5.4(a)(1), (e) (). Accordingly, the fact that Chapter 3 governs the general filing requirements for personal property tax returns does not alter the fact that Chapter 12.1 requires a person to file a personal property tax return to be eligible for a tax abatement deduction. The Council, therefore, had the authority to waive the untimeliness of Alexin's personal property tax return under ...
To continue reading
Request your trial