Preview:

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER: TIMOTHY J. VRANA ATTORNEY AT LAW Columbus, IN

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: STEVE CARTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA KRISTEN M. KEMP DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Indianapolis, IN

_____________________________________________________________________

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
_____________________________________________________________________ HURRICANE FOOD, INC., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 49T10-0412-TA-56 ) WHITE RIVER TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR, ) ) Respondent. ) _____________________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW FOR PUBLICATION November 3, 2005 FISHER, J. Hurricane Food, Inc. (Hurricane) appeals the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board) valuing its real property for the March 1, 2002 assessment date. The sole issue before the Court is whether the Indiana Board erred in valuing Hurricane's improvement. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Hurricane owns a fast food restaurant in Johnson County, Indiana. The property was constructed in 1990. For the 2002 assessment date, the White River Township

Assessor (Assessor) assigned Hurricane's property an assessed value of $634,200 ($297,300 for land and $336,900 for improvements). In arriving at that value, the

Assessor assigned Hurricane's improvement an effective age of less than one year, and a condition rating of "average." Accordingly, Hurricane's improvement received no

adjustment for physical depreciation. Believing its assessment to be too high, Hurricane subsequently filed a Petition for Review of Assessment (Form 130) with the Johnson County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA). In its Form 130, Hurricane challenged the computation of its improvement's effective age. Specifically, Hurricane claimed that its improvement's effective age should be eight and, with a condition rating of "average," it was entitled to a 35% physical depreciation adjustment. Hurricane explained that the 35% physical depreciation adjustment would reduce the value of its improvement to $226,700. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 52-53.) On October 24, 2003, after conducting a hearing on the matter, the PTABOA recommended no change to the assessment. In so doing, it explained that Hurricane had indicated at the hearing that it purchased the property in 1997 for $700,000. 1 Accordingly, the PTABOA determined that "th[at] sale price . . . is considered the [property's] best indication of value." (Cert. Admin. R. at 7.) Hurricane filed a Petition for Review of Assessment with the Indiana Board (Form 131) on November 18, 2003. In its Form 131, Hurricane again challenged the

More specifically, Hurricane stated that "[t]he subject property was purchased for $700,00 on 09/05/97. This $700,000 was for: $150,000 = Land[;] $160,000 = for Site Improvements[;] $210,000 = for the building[; and] $180,000 = for [e]quipment[.]" (Cert. Admin. R. at 10.)

1

2

computation of its improvement's effective age. The Indiana Board held a hearing on Hurricane's Form 131 on August 19, 2004. On November 9, 2004, the Indiana Board issued its final determination in which it denied Hurricane's request for relief, stating that "[the] market data tends to support the total current assessed value of $634,200." (Cert. Admin. R. at 22.) Hurricane filed an original tax appeal on December 17, 2004, and the Court heard the parties' oral arguments on August 5, 2005. 2 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. Miller Village Prop. Co. v. Indiana Bd. of Tax Review, 779 N.E.2d 986, 988 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2002), 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; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence.

(2)

(2)

(4) (5)

IND. CODE ANN.

Download Hurricane Food, Inc. v. White River Township Assessor.pdf

Indiana Law