The 8,746-square-foot, two-story house, along with its pond and two barns are tucked far enough away on the 36-acre spread to nearly be out of site from traffic passing along the nearby rural stretch of County Road 200 West in Porter Township.
But the property has caught the attention of the Porter County assessor's office, not because of its assessed value of $1.1 million, but because the owner is paying no property taxes, according to Assessor Jon Snyder.
Former members of the Porter County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals granted a religious tax exemption in 2009 for the barns and land at the site, he said. But the registered owner, an online provider of church sermons operating under the name Preachit Inc., has not been paying taxes on the house either.
The current members of the PTABOA have scheduled a hearing Dec. 16 to question the owner about the exemption, Snyder said. For the house to qualify for the exemption, it would have to be used predominately for religious purposes, he said.
"Those are the questions that need to be asked," he said.
Snyder said his office has been unsuccessful in reaching a representative of Preachit.
James Smith, who is identified by the Indiana Secretary of State's office as the registered agent of the Preachit non-profit corporation, declined comment on the pending inquiry about his tax exempt status.
He did say PreachIt.org, which claims to offer more than 3,900 manuscript and outlined sermons, is only a small part of what the group does, but he did not want to elaborate.
...
Snyder had announced shortly after taking office in 2011 that he intended to take a close look at the 6,246 local parcels receiving property tax exemptions to see if each owner is qualified for the tax break. He said an estimated $17 million in unpaid revenue was at stake.
He took part last week in a two-day hearing opposing an attempt by the United Steelworkers Local 6787 to gain tax exempt status for its union hall along Ind. 149 in Portage, and a nearby building referred to by the union as a meeting hall and by the assessor's attorney as a lucrative banquet center.
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/porter/valparaiso/religious-tax-exemption-questioned-on-million-home-site/article_ffeca09b-9fe8-56be-b596-36f0e368785c.html
Interesting to note here, the United Steelworkers Local 6787 property mentioned in the article above has already lost its exemption appeal to Tax Court in previous years:
...
In its appeal to this Court,
Local 6787 asserts that the Indiana Board’s final determination must be
reversed because Local 6787 prima facie established that the banquet
facility was used 86.11 percent of the time for educational/charitable purposes.
More specifically, Local 6787 argues that it demonstrated that both its
organizational purposes and uses of the banquet facility were educationally and
charitably grounded because: 1) labor unions are “inherently” charitable in
nature and have historically been granted property tax exemptions; 2) the union
hall has always been exempted from property taxation; 3) the provisions of
Local 6787’s by-laws were educational/charitable in nature; 4) culinary classes
were taught within the facility; and 5) Local 6787 “donated” the banquet
facility to other charitable entities whenever possible. (See Pet’r Br.
at 11-17, 25-29, 32.) The Court disagrees.
Local 6787 claims that because
its union activities were charitable in nature, both it and its uses of the
facility were charitable. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 250-51 (claiming that
“the purposes for which unions are formed and operated are by definition
charitable”).) (See also Oral Argument Tr. at 8 (referring to its union
hall’s longstanding exemption status).) This claim does not, however, establish
that Local 6787 predominately used its banquet facility for charitable or
educational purposes for several reasons. First, as the Indiana Board
recognized, Local 6787 provided no citation to Indiana statutes, case law, or
any other persuasive authority for the proposition that unions are inherently
charitable. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 28 ¶ 30.) See also Bulkmatic
Transp. Co. v. Dep’t of State Revenue, 691 N.E.2d 1371, 1375 (Ind. Tax Ct.
1998) (rejecting a taxpayer’s argument that was unsupported by any authority).
Second, the fact that Local 6787’s union hall qualified for a property tax
exemption in the past does not automatically mean that its banquet facility should
be deemed exempt for the year at issue. See Jamestown Homes of Mishawaka,
Inc. v. St. Joseph County Assessor, 914 N.E.2d 13, 15 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2009)
(providing that each and every exemption case stands on its own facts and,
ultimately, how the parties present those facts) (citation omitted), review
denied. Here, the administrative record does not reveal what “day-to-day”
union activities were considered educational/charitable; thus, there is no
evidence as to how the educational or charitable uses of the union hall
coincided with the uses of the banquet facility. In fact, the administrative
record reveals that the activities conducted in the union hall and the banquet
facility did not coincide at all. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 302-04,
319-22.)
Third, while Local 6787’s
by-laws evidence some charitable/educational intent as to the organization,
intent does not establish predominate use. See National Ass’n of Miniature
Enthusiasts v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 671 N.E.2d 218, 221-22 (Ind. Tax Ct.
1996) (taxpayer’s articles of incorporation and “code of regulations” declaring
exempt purposes did not demonstrate that its predominate use of property was
educational/charitable). Likewise, Local 6787’s status as a not-for-profit
corporation is insufficient to support a finding of predominate use. See
Lincoln Hills Dev. Corp. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 521 N.E.2d 1360, 1361
(Ind. Tax Ct. 1988) (under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-10-16, an entity must show that
its property is actually used for exempt purposes, not merely that it has been
granted not-for-profit status). Finally, Local 6787’s educational uses of the
banquet facility (i.e., the culinary classes) were insufficient to support a
finding of predominate use because the facility was used for such activities
less than 50 percent of the time for the year at issue. Consequently, the Court
cannot say that the Indiana Board erred in rejecting Local 6787’s exemption
application.
The evaluation of whether
property is used for educational/charitable purposes is a fact-sensitive
inquiry; there are no bright-line tests. See Jamestown Homes, 914 N.E.2d
at 15 (citation omitted). Here, the Indiana Board’s final determination
indicates that it assigned minimal weight to Local 6787’s arguments because
they were not supported by substantial evidence. As the fact finder, it was well
within the purview of the Indiana Board to make that determination. See
French Lick Twp. Tr. Assessor v. Kimball Int’l, Inc., 865 N.E.2d 732, 739
(Ind. Tax Ct. 2007) (explaining the taxpayer bears the burden of making the
Indiana Board understand its evidence).
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/09021001tgf.pdf
