Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-12(d)
states that “if: (1) land assessed on an acreage basis is subdivided into lots;
or (2) land is rezoned for, or put to a different use; the land shall be
reassessed on the basis of its new classification.” Subsection (h) is an
exception to the requirement. That section states “land in inventory may not be
reassessed until the next assessment date following the earliest of: (1) the
date on which title to the land is transferred by: (A) the land developer; or
(B) a successor land developer that acquires title to the land; to a person
that is not a land developer; (2) the date on which construction of a structure
begins on the land; or (3) the date on which a building permit is issued for
construction of a building or structure on the land.” See Ind. Code §
6-1.1-4-12(h). Subsection (i) adds that “Subsection (h) applies regardless of
whether the land in inventory is rezoned while a land developer holds title to
the land.” See
Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-12(i). This “exception is commonly referred to as the
‘developer‘s discount.’” Howser Development LLC v. Vienna Township Assessor,
833 N.E.2d 1108, 1110 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). According to the Tax Court in Howser
Development, the “developer‘s discount” was “designed to encourage developers to buy
farmland, subdivide it into lots, and resell the lots.” Id., citing Aboite
Corp. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 762 N.E.2d 254, 257 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001).
Thus, during the period of time that the developer held the property,
subdivided the land into lots, and developed the property for residential use,
the developer enjoyed the protection of the developer‘s discount and the
property remained assessed as if it were agricultural land. Despite the fiction
embodied in the developer‘s discount, however, the land was developed,
infrastructure was built, and the properties’ use changed from agricultural to
residential property.
Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2
applies where “the assessment that is the subject of the review or appeal
increased the assessed value of the assessed property by more than five percent
(5%) over the assessed value determined by the county assessor or township
assessor (if any) for the immediately preceding assessment date for the same
property.”
Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2. “When faced with a question of statutory
interpretation, this Court looks first to the plain language of the statute.
Where the language is unambiguous, the Court has no power to construe the
statute for the purpose of limiting or extending its operation.” Joyce Sportswear Co.
v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 684 N.E.2d 1189, 1192 (Ind. Tax Ct.
1997), review denied. Under the plain language of Indiana Code §
6-1.1-15-17.2, the burden shifts to the assessor when the assessed value of the
same property increases by more than five percent.
In 2009, the lots were still owned by a developer and despite the land being subdivided into lots and infrastructure for the residential neighborhood being constructed, the assessor continued to assess the properties as agricultural land pursuant to the requirements of Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-12(h). However, after the lots were sold to the Petitioner at auction and the lots were no longer entitled to the protections of the developer‘s discount, the assessor was required to assess the property for its new use as residential property. Thus, the assessor was assessing agricultural property in 2009 and residential property in 2010. Because the assessor was not assessing the “same property” in 2010 as she assessed in 2009, the Board finds that the Petitioner has the burden to prove its properties’ assessed values were incorrect in this case.
