Undisputed evidence established that the Petitioner bought the
subject property in December 2007. Therefore, March 1, 2008, was the first
assessment date that the Petitioner owned the subject property. Undisputed
evidence established that no assessed value was recorded for the subject
property for the 2008 assessment and no tax was claimed to be due for 2008.
After considering all of the evidence, the Board concludes that showing no
assessed value and no tax liability for 2008 was a mistake (considering the
subject property to still be government owned), but it was a mistake in the
Petitioner’s favor because the result was no tax liability for 2008. That
situation does not prove an exemption was granted for 2008 and it does not
create a basis for any exemption to carry over to 2009.
Throughout this case the Petitioner demonstrated a fundamental
misunderstanding about statutory exemption procedures. The Petitioner attempted
to argue that it would have filed the exemption application if it had been
notified about the need to do so. The Petitioner provided no substantial basis
for requiring such a notice and simply disregarded the May 15 deadline
specified in the statute. Ultimately the Petitioner was responsible for making
sure that whatever needed to be done to claim an exemption for the property it
recently bought actually got done.
The Petitioner’s erroneous assumption that some kind of
exemption for the prior owner of the property would be carried over is not
supported by any substantial authority or argument. Furthermore, Ind. Code
§6-1.1-11-3.5 clearly specifies that the Petitioner was required to file an
application for exemption by May 15 of the year for which exemption was sought.
The Petitioner’s failure to file any application for exemption during 2008 or
2009 waived whatever exemption might have been available. And here that is the
decisive point.
The case dwelled on many things that simply do not matter. The
Petitioner’s 501(c)(3) status is unimportant to the real issue. The
Petitioner’s attempt to blame others—the Conservancy District, the Conservancy
District’s attorney, the accountant, the Assessor, the Treasurer—for various
problems and mistakes is irrelevant. The fact that Mrs. LaRosa made honest
mistakes based on ignorance also does not change the outcome of this case.
Again, missing the specific statutory filing requirements for an exemption is
the controlling point.
Nevertheless, the Petitioner had an opportunity to salvage its
claim for 2008 or 2009 based on the non-Code provision for untimely exemption
applications discussed in the Department of Local Government Finance memo,
Petitioner Exhibit 12. That legislation probably would have allowed the
Petitioner until September 1, 2009, to file its exemption claim for 2008 and/or
2009. But the Petitioner also failed to meet that extended deadline. The Board
cannot extend the filing deadline any further than the Legislature already did.
Consequently, even if the Petitioner otherwise would have
qualified for a charitable exemption on the subject property for 2008 or 2009,
the failure to file any application for exemption until April 15, 2010,
operates as a waiver of the exemption.
A Form 133 cannot be used to get around the fact that the
Petitioner missed both the original filing date and the extended filing date
for the exemption it sought. See Barth , Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs,
699 N.E.2d 800, 805 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998); Bock Prods. v. Indiana State Bd. of
Tax Comm’rs, 683 N.E.2d 1368, 1370 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997) (explaining proper
use of Form 133 to correct objective errors). Under these circumstances,
denying the exemption for 2008 and 2009 because of the 2010 filing date was not
an error.
