Preview:

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONERS: STEVEN A. KUROWSKI Schererville, IN

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: STEVE CARTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA DAWN D. CUMMINGS JENNIFER E. GAUGER DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL Indianapolis, IN

_____________________________________________________________________

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
_____________________________________________________________________ JOSEPH J. KROL and LAUREL V. KROL, ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 45T10-0601-TA-12 ) INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW, ) ) Respondent. ) _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER ON RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR PUBLICATION June 9, 2006 FISHER, J. Joseph J. and Laurel V. Krol (the Krols) appeal the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board) valuing their real property for the 2002 tax year. The matter is currently before the Court on the Indiana Board's motion to dismiss. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Krols own commercial real property in Lake County, Indiana. For the March 1, 2002 assessment date, the Department of Local Government Finance (DLGF) assessed the Krols' property at $451,800 (land at $450,700 and improvements at

$1,100).

The Krols, believing the assessment to be incorrect, filed a "Petition for

Review of DLGF Action for Lake County Residents" (Form 139L) with the Indiana Board. After conducting a hearing on the Krols' Form 139L on July 7, 2005, the Indiana Board issued a final determination in which it ordered that the Krols' assessment be reduced to $175,900. Despite the reduction, the Krols initiated an original tax appeal on February 8, 2006. On March 10, 2006, the Indiana Board moved to dismiss the Krols' appeal, claiming that the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction over the case because the Krols' petition for judicial review does not name the proper party and is not properly verified. 1 The Court conducted a hearing on the Indiana Board's motion on May 15, 2006. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary. ANALYSIS Every action has three jurisdictional elements: 1) jurisdiction of the subject

matter; 2) jurisdiction of the person; and 3) jurisdiction of the particular case. Carroll County Rural Elec. Membership Corp. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 733 N.E.2d 44, 47 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000) (citation omitted). The Indiana Board asserts that the Court lacks "subject matter jurisdiction to hear the particular case" because the Krols' petition fails to identify the DLGF as the appropriate respondent. (See Resp't Mot. to Dismiss at

Download Joseph J. Krol and Laurel V. Krol v. Indiana Board of Tax Review.pdf

Indiana Law