If a taxpayer acts within Indiana Code 6-1.1-15-1’s relatively short deadline for appealing an assessment, the taxpayer may assert all grounds upon which he believes the assessor erred in valuing his property. Those appeals are filed with the Board on Form 131 petitions. Even if the taxpayer misses Ind. Code 6-1.1-15-1’s deadline, he may still appeal the assessment using a Form 133 petition. But the taxpayer may only raise objective errors; he may not challenge qualitative or discretionary decisions that require subjective judgment. Here, the Petitioner used Form 133 petitions to claim that its parcels, which the Petitioner describes as common areas of a residential neighborhood that are subject to restrictions on their transfer and use, have zero market value-in-use. But that differs from simply adding or subtracting pre-determined costs from assessment regulations—the type of straightforward objective determination for which the Form 133 process was designed. Instead, the Petitioner’s claims require applying evidence external to those assessment regulations to make a qualitative decision about the value of its property. And that inherently requires subjective judgment. The Board therefore dismisses the Petitioner’s Form 133 petitions.
…
See the full analysis here:
A similar matter was addressed and dismissed in each of the following cases:
A slightly different analysis (albeit the same result) in the following cases:
This case raises the burden shifting issue:
And in these cases the attorney argued the Board exceeded its authority to raise the procedural issue sua sponte:
Since the petitions at issue in these appeals, on their faces, appeared to have originally been filed well past Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-1’s deadline and to challenge only determinations requiring the exercise of subjective judgment, the Board issued an order for the Petitioner to show cause why those petitions should not be dismissed. Rather than addressing the substance of the Board’s show cause order, the Petitioner only contested the Board’s authority to issue that order. Because the Board had the authority to issue such an order, and because the Petitioner’s appeal petitions facially challenge only determinations that involve subjective judgment, the Board dismisses those petitions.
…
See the full analyses here:
