Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: JAMES W. BEATTY GREGORY F. ZOELLER JAMES F. BEATTY ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA JESSICA L. FINDLEY JESSICA E. REAGAN LANDMAN & BEATTY DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Indianapolis, IN Indianapolis, IN _____________________________________________________________________

CLERK _____________________________________________________________________
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT

FILED

Sep 30 2009, 2:05 pm

JAMESTOWN HOMES OF MISHAWAKA, INC.,

) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 49T10-0802-TA-17 ) ST. JOSEPH COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) ) Respondent. ) _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ON PETITIONERS PETITION FOR REHEARING FOR PUBLICATION September 30, 2009 FISHER, J. On July 24, 2009, this Court issued an opinion in the above-captioned case. In that opinion, the Court affirmed the Indiana Board of Tax Reviews (Indiana Board) final determination that held that Jamestown Homes of Mishawaka, Inc. (Jamestown) was not entitled to a property tax exemption on apartments it leased to low/moderate income individuals for below-market rent. See Jamestown Homes of Mishawaka, Inc. v. St. Joseph County Assessor, 909 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2009). On August 21, 2009, Jamestown filed a Petition for Rehearing (Petition), pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule 63, requesting the Court reconsider its holding.

ANALYSIS & ORDER In its Petition, Jamestown maintains that the Court must reconsider its holding in Jamestown for two reasons. First, it argues that the Jamestown decision conflicts with the Courts decision in Oaken Bucket Partners, LLC v. Hamilton County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals, 909 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2009). (Petr Pet. Rehg at 4-5.) Second, it argues that in denying it an exemption, the Court both "committed error and created a new burden of proof." (Petr Pet. Rehg at 5-8.) 1. On the same day the Court issued its decision in Jamestown, it also issued a decision in the aforementioned Oaken Bucket case. In Oaken Bucket, the Court held that the petitioner was entitled to an exemption on property it leased to a church for below-market rent. See Oaken Bucket Partners, LLC v. Hamilton County Prop. Tax Assessment Bd. of Appeals, 909 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2009). Jamestown now argues that the holding in its case is "irreconcilable and totally inapposite" with the holding in Oaken Bucket and must therefore be reversed: Oaken Bucket leased its property for below-market rent and got an exemption, while Jamestown leased its property for below-market rent and did not get an exemption. (See Petr Pet. Rehg at 4-5.) "All or part of a building is exempt from property taxation if it is owned, occupied, and [predominately] used . . . for . . . religious[] or charitable purposes." IND. CODE ANN.

Download Jamestown Homes of Mishawaka, Inc. v. St. Joseph County Assessor.pdf

Indiana Law