Westfield Golf v. Washington Tp. Assessor

Decision Date05 January 2007
Docket NumberNo. 49T10-0507-TA-54.,49T10-0507-TA-54.
Citation859 N.E.2d 396
PartiesWESTFIELD GOLF PRACTICE CENTER, LLC, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR, Hamilton County Assessor, and Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, Respondents.
CourtIndiana Tax Court

Jeffrey T. Bennett, Bradley D. Hasler, Bingham McHale, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Petitioner.

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Dawn D. Cummings, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Respondents.

FISHER, J.

Westfield Golf Practice Center, LLC (Westfield) appeals the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board) valuing its real property for the 2002 assessment year. Westfield maintains that its assessment violates Article X, Section I of the Indiana Constitution.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Westfield owns approximately fifteen acres of land in Washington Township, Hamilton County, Indiana, on which it operates a commercial driving range. Approximately 11.644 acres of Westfield's land is "landing area" (i.e., the land upon which golf balls come to rest after being struck from the tees).

For the 2002 assessment, the Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals valued Westfield's land at $403,800. In arriving at this value, Westfield's landing area was classified as "usable undeveloped" and assigned a rate of $35,100 per acre. Believing the assessment to be too high, Westfield filed a Petition for Review with the Indiana Board (Form 131) on February 19, 2004.

The Indiana Board held a hearing on Westfield's Form 131 on November 10, 2004. On May 26, 2005, the Indiana Board issued its final determination in which it denied Westfield's request for relief.

Westfield filed an original tax appeal on July 7, 2005. The Court heard the parties' oral arguments on October 13, 2006. Additional facts will be supplied as 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. Wittenberg Lutheran Vill. Endowment Corp. v. Lake County Prop. Tax Assessment Bd. of Appeals, 782 N.E.2d 483, 486 (Ind. Tax Ct.2003), review denied. Consequently, 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 ANN. § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (West 2007).

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Article X, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution requires "[t]he General Assembly [to] provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation and [to] prescribe regulations to secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, both real and personal." IND. CONST. ART. 10, § 1(a). This provision has long been held to require: (1) uniformity and equality in assessment, (2) uniformity and equality as to the rate of taxation, and (3) a just valuation for taxation of all property. See Indianapolis Historic Partners v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 694 N.E.2d 1224, 1228 (Ind. Tax Ct.1998) (citation omitted).

Westfield contends that its assessment violates Article X, Section 1 because it is not uniform and equal. More specifically, Westfield asserts that its assessment lacks uniformity and equality because its property is assessed differently than other comparable properties located in Hamilton County. (See Oral Argument Tr. at 4-6, 25-26; Pet'r Reply Br. at 1-2.) To support its argument, Westfield submitted the property record cards on five other driving ranges (four of which were located upon golf courses). (See Cert. Admin. R. at 162-97.) Westfield explains that while its landing area was assessed at $35,100 per acre, the landing areas at the other driving ranges were assessed using a golf course rate of $1,050 per acre.1 (See Cert. Admin. R. at 162-97, 248-54; Pet'r Br. at 3 (footnote added).) Westfield's argument, however, confuses what it means to be "uniform and equal" under Indiana's current assessment system and, as a result, it has "duffed" the proverbial ball.

Prior to 2002, property in Indiana was assessed on the basis of its "true tax value." IND.CODE ANN. § 6-1.1-31-6(c) (West 2000) (amended 2002). True tax value was determined under Indiana's own assessment regulations and bore no relation to any external, objectively verifiable standard of measure. See id. See also Town of St. John v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 665 N.E.2d 965, 967 (Ind. Tax Ct.1996) ("St. John I"), rev'd in part on other grounds by Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318 (Ind.1996). Consequently, because determination of a property's assessed value was inextricably entangled with how the regulations were applied, the only way to determine the uniformity and equality of assessments was to determine whether the regulations were applied similarly to comparable properties. See Town of St. John v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 690 N.E.2d 370, 377-78 (Ind. Tax Ct.1997) ("St. John III"), rev'd in part on other grounds by 702 N.E.2d 1034 (Ind.1998).

Specifically, under Indiana's pre-2002 regulations, land values were determined through the application of land orders. 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.2-4-2, -6 (1996) (repealed 1998). The land orders were developed by collecting and analyzing comparable sales data for given areas. See A.I.C. § 6-1.1-31-6(a). See also State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs v. Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc., 743 N.E.2d 247, 251 (Ind.2001). More specifically, each county had a land valuation commission that collected and analyzed sales data on non-agricultural (i.e., residential, commercial, and industrial) land within the county, and, on the basis of that data, recommended a range of values for property in certain areas. See 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.2-4-5 (1996) (repealed 2002). These values were either accepted or modified by the State Board of Tax Commissioners (State Board), without further input from the county commissions. See 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.2-4-3(a) (1996) (repealed 1998). The State Board's final figures were then compiled in a county land valuation order.

The commercial or industrial land values contained within a land order were typically expressed in ranges of "base rates" of four classes of land (i.e., primary, secondary, usable undeveloped, unusable undeveloped) that were applied to various geographic areas, subdivisions, or neighborhoods based on distinguishing characteristics or boundaries. See 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.2-4-17(a), (b) (1996) (repealed 2002). Consequently, properties within each geographic area, subdivision, or neighborhood in a land order were presumed to be comparable, both in distinguishing characteristics and in market value. See Indianapolis Racquet Club, 743 N.E.2d at 251-52. Therefore, the principles of uniformity and equality in assessment and taxation were violated when comparable properties were assessed and taxed differently. See generally, Indiana State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs v. Lyon & Greenleaf Co., 172 Ind.App. 272, 359 N.E.2d 931 (1977); Zakutansky v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 691 N.E.2d 1365 (Ind. Tax Ct.1998); Harrington v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 525 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Tax Ct.1988); Meridian Hills Country Club v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 512 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. Tax Ct.1987).

Beginning in 2002, however, Indiana's overhauled property tax assessment system incorporates an external, objectively verifiable benchmark — market value-in-use.2 As a result, the new system shifts the focus from examining how the regulations were applied (i.e., mere methodology) to examining whether a property's assessed value actually reflects the external benchmark of market value-in-use. See 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.3-1-1(d) (2002 Supp.). Thus, Indiana's current assessment guidelines explain the assessment process and provide a starting point for an assessor to determine a property's market value-in-use. See REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR 2002 — VERSION A (hereinafter Guidelines) (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.3-1-2 (2002 Supp.)), Books 1 and 2, Book 1 at 1. Indeed, with respect to selecting base rates for land valuation, the Guidelines stress that "the pricing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • In re the Majestic Star Casino Llc
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Delaware
    • September 13, 2011
    ...(noting that market value-in-use is “determined by objectively verifiable market data”); Westfield Golf Practice Center, LLC v. Washington Township Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396, 399 (Ind.Tax Ct.2007) (“[T]he overarching goal of Indiana's new assessment scheme is to measure a property's value us......
  • Piotrowski BK #5643, LLC v. Shelby Cnty. Assessor
    • United States
    • Indiana Tax Court
    • September 16, 2021
    ...uniformity and equality in property assessment is through an assessment ratio study. Westfield Golf Practice Ctr., LLC v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396, 399 n.3 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007). An assessment ratio study "compare[s] the assessed values of properties within an assessing jurisd......
  • Charwood LLC v. Bartholomew County Assessor, 49T10-0805-TA-33.
    • United States
    • Indiana Tax Court
    • May 14, 2009
    ...and bore no relation to any external, objectively verifiable standard of measure." See Westfield Golf Practice Ctr., LLC v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396, 398 (Ind. Tax Ct.2007) (citations omitted). "Beginning in 2002, however, Indiana's overhauled property tax assessment system ......
  • DuSablon v. Kaufman
    • United States
    • Indiana Tax Court
    • December 4, 2020
    ...evidence that provided an estimate of their property's market value-in-exchange. See, e.g., Westfield Golf Practice Ctr. v. Washington Twp. Assessor, 859 N.E.2d 396, 399 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007) ; O'Donnell v. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 854 N.E.2d 90, 93-94 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006) ; Eckerling v. Way......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT