Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Steve Carter Attorney General of Indiana John D. Snethen

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Larry J. Stroble Randal J. Kaltenmark Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE MEADOWBROOK NORTH APARTMENTS Jon Laramore Brent A. Auberry Vickie L. Norman Indianapolis, Indiana

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
Andrew W. Swain Special Counsel, Tax Section Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 49S10-0509-TA-414 DIXIE PACKARD, CLAY TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR, Appellant (Respondent below), v. PAUL SHOOPMAN, Appellee (Petitioner below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Indiana Tax Court, No. 49T10-0209-TA-113 The Honorable Thomas G. Fisher, Judge _________________________________ On Petition for Review _________________________________ August 23, 2006 Boehm, Justice. We hold that objection based on a petitioner's alleged failure to comply with the statutory requirement that petition to the Tax Court be filed within thirty days after the agency determination is waived if not raised in the first response to the petition.

Facts and Procedural History In 1997 Paul Shoopman appealed the 1995 assessment of his real property in Hamilton County to the State Board of Tax Commissioners (State Board). The State Board held a hearing on March 11, 1998 but did not issue a final determination. Effective January 1, 2002, all pending property tax appeals were transferred to the Indiana Board of Tax Review (IBTR), which assumed jurisdiction over Shoopman's appeal. On August 7, 2002, IBTR issued a final determination denying Shoopman's appeal. On September 23, 2002, Shoopman petitioned to the Tax Court to review IBTR's determination. On January 27, 2003, the Attorney General of Indiana successfully moved to dismiss the Hamilton County Assessor and the Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, leaving only the Clay Township Assessor as a named defendant. Two years later the Assessor moved to dismiss Shoopman's appeal on the ground that Shoopman had failed to file a timely petition for judicial review. The Tax Court held that the Assessor had waived the objection to timeliness, and on the merits reversed IBTR's determination denying Shoopman's appeal. Shoopman v. Clay Twp. Assessor, 827 N.E.2d 662, 665, 667 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). We granted review. Packard v. Shoopman, 841 N.E.2d 183 (Ind. 2005). Consequence of Failure to File a Timely Petition for Review in the Tax Court The deadline for filing a petition for judicial review in the Tax Court is governed by statute. Indiana Code section 33-26-6-2 (2004) provides that "If a taxpayer fails to comply with any statutory requirement for the initiation of an original tax appeal, the tax court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal." 1 One "statutory requirement" is that the petitioner file a petition for review by the Tax Court within a deadline established by statute. Under the current statutes, IBTR is required to hold a hearing on the petitioner's appeal and issue a final administrative determination within 90 days of the hearing or within the time provided in an order extending time. Ind. Code. 6-1.1-15-4(i) (West Supp. 2006). If IBTR fails to make a final determination within that time, the petitioner may do nothing and wait for a final determination by IBTR or may petition for judicial review in the Tax Court. I.C.

Download Dixie Packard & Clay Township Assessor v. Paul Shoopman.pdf

Indiana Law