Preview:

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

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: STEVE CARTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA ALLEN R. MORFORD DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Indianapolis, IN

_____________________________________________________________________

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
_____________________________________________________________________ P/A BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, LLC, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 49T10-0409-TA-47 ) JENNINGS COUNTY ASSESSOR, ) ) Respondent. ) _____________________________________________________________________ ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW NOT FOR PUBLICATION November 3, 2005 FISHER, J. P/A Builders & Developers, LLC (P/A) appeals the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax Review (Indiana Board) valuing its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 P/A's improvement. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY P/A owns general office property in Jennings County, Indiana. The property was constructed in 1933 and completely remodeled in 2001. For the 2002 assessment date,

the Jennings County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals (PTABOA) assigned P/A's property a true tax value of $336,600 ($109,200 for land and $227,400 for improvements). In arriving at that value, P/A's improvement was assigned an effective age of 8 years and a condition rating of "average." Accordingly, P/A's improvement received a twelve percent (12%) physical depreciation adjustment. Believing its assessment to be too high, P/A filed a Petition for Review of Assessment with the Indiana Board (Form 131) on November 17, 2003. In its Form 131, P/A challenged the computation of its improvement's effective age. Specifically, P/A claimed that its improvement's effective age should be 65 and, with a condition rating of "average," it was entitled to receive a 35% physical depreciation adjustment. The Indiana Board held a hearing on P/A's Form 131 on May 20, 2004. On September 14, 2004, the Indiana Board issued its final determination in which it denied P/A's request for relief. P/A filed an original tax appeal on September 27, 2004. 1 The Court heard the parties' oral arguments on August 5, 2005. necessary. Additional facts will be supplied as

In answering P/A's appeal, the Assessor raised the affirmative defense that this Court lacked: 1) jurisdiction of the subject matter; 2) jurisdiction of the person; and 3) jurisdiction of the particular case. (Resp't Answer at 2.) For the following reasons, however, the Assessor's affirmative defense is denied. "Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a court to hear and determine the general class of cases to which the proceedings before it belong." Musgrave v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 658 N.E.2d 135, 138 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995) (citation omitted). A determination as to whether subject matter jurisdiction exists depends solely on "whether the type of claim advanced by the petitioner falls within the general scope of authority conferred upon the court by constitution or statute." Id. While the appropriate means for a party to challenge a court's subject matter jurisdiction is either as an affirmative defense in its responsive pleading (answer) or in a Trial Rule 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss, the issue of a court's subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived. See Ind. 2

1

Trial Rules 8(C), 12(B); Foor v. Town of Hebron, 742 N.E.2d 545, 548 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (citation omitted). The general scope of authority conferred upon the Tax Court is governed by Indiana Code

Download P/A Builders & Developers, LLC v. Jennings Co. Assessor.pdf

Indiana Law