Tuesday, December 31, 2013

IBJ Reports Panel's Use of TIF Funds Spurs New Flap in Carmel

From the Indianapolis Business Journal:

The cash-strapped Carmel Redevelopment Commission is revising its 2014 budget to account for the loss of a six-figure income stream critics say it was not entitled to use in the first place.

Rather than set aside revenue from the Legacy development’s tax-increment financing district when construction there stalled, the beleaguered agency applied the annual windfall to the mountain of debt it ran up rebuilding downtown Carmel.

But with a new developer resurrecting Legacy, the money now must be redirected to its intended purpose: paying for infrastructure improvements in and around the project at 146th Street and River Road.

Two City Council leaders say the CRC never should have touched the money, calling the late-year financial scramble further evidence of the panel’s poor internal controls and shoddy recordkeeping.
 
“The ball got dropped on this the moment they started collecting revenue in 2011,” said outgoing council President Rick Sharp. “A little over $1 million has been misappropriated to this point.”

CRC President Bill Hammer denied any wrongdoing, saying the commission spent the “excess revenue”—about $210,000 in 2011 and nearly $505,000 in 2012, for example—on other redevelopment expenses.

There are plenty of those. Over more than a decade, the CRC borrowed $240 million to support ambitious projects like Carmel City Center and the Arts & Design District, paying the tab with revenue from more than two dozen of the city’s TIF districts.

Its activity slowed this year, after the City Council agreed to refinance $184 million in CRC debt—and gained more control over spending.
...

http://www.ibj.com/panels-use-of-tif-funds-spurs-new-flap-in-carmel/PARAMS/article/45289

Times Argues if its a Church, Invite all to Worship

From the Northwest Indiana Times:

The Porter County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals is puzzling over tax-exempt status for a 36-acre site in Porter Township that also serves as a private home.

This case tests the limits of current legal definitions.

During a recent hearing, board member Vicki Urbanik flat out asked an attorney for PreachIt, which owns the property, "Are you a church?"

The exchange between Urbanik and PreachIt attorney Tammy Ortman is telling.

"How do you define a church?" Ortman asked. "By statute, yes, it is a church. I don't know if that's within what you understand that term to mean or what I understand that term to mean. If it means does it have a steeple on the building, the answer is no."

This $1.1 million, 36-acre site in Porter Township has an 8,746-square-foot home, pond and two barns. The Porter County assessor's office began the current inquiry into this property after discovering a religious exemption had been granted in 2009 for part of the site and no property taxes are being paid on any of it.

So is this a church or isn't it?

The Internal Revenue Service, Ortman said, understands a church to include a group that holds services, administers sacraments and is led by an ordained individual. That's a loose definition.

One logical test might be whether the would-be church is open to the public.

Urbanik asked whether this home is open to the public.

"Invitees, I think, would be the proper term — and certainly the answer to that would be yes," Ortman said. "But to say we have a revolving door so that the public can come and go anytime, that answer would be no."

Churches these days often lock their doors when the building is unattended, a sad aspect of life in the modern era. But there's a difference between locking the door when the building is unattended and putting up a "No trespassing" sign like the one on the PreachIt property.
...

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/opinion/editorial/editorial-if-it-s-a-church-invite-all-to-worship/article_efe0f63d-719f-5c25-8a35-81cccbb1db5d.html

Four Hearings Scheduled in Tax Court for January

Tannins of Indianapolis, LLC v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue (View)
Friday, January 10, 2014 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM
49T10-1303-SC-45      

This is a small claims trial.

For a description on the merits of the case see the Tax Summaries at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/taxsumm.html.

Location:
State House, Room 413
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Orbitz, LLC v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue (View)
Friday, January 17, 2014 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM
49T10-0903-TA-10

This is a hearing on the parties' motions for summary judgment.

For a description on the merits of the case see the Tax Summaries at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/taxsumm.html.

Location:
State House, Room 413
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue (View)
Monday, January 27, 2014 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM
49T10-1012-TA-64

The taxpayer chalenges whether sales tax is owed on certain items used in its business operations.

Senior Judge Thomas G. Fisher, presiding

Location:
State House, Room 413
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue (View)
Tuesday, January 28, 2014 10:00 AM - 11:00 AM
49T10-1206-TA-34

This is a hearing on a partial motion for summary judgment.

For a description on the merits of the case see the Tax Summaries at http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/taxsumm.html

Senior Judge Thomas G. Fisher, presiding

Location:
State House, Room 413
Indianapolis, IN 46204

http://www.in.gov/activecalendar/EventList.aspx?fromdate=12%2f1%2f2013&todate=12%2f31%2f2013&display=Month&view=DateTime

News Sentinel Argues School Districts Learning to Ask for Money

From the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel:

School districts in Indiana have gone to voters 92 times since 2008 seeking approval for property tax increases. The majority of requests – 53 percent – have been defeated.
That figure might seem discouraging to Hoosier educators. But breaking down the results shows a slightly different story, says Andrew Downs, director of the Mike Downs Center for Indiana Politics at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne, writing in The Indianapolis Star. In 2008 and 2009, districts put 26 referendums before voters; 16 of them, or 62 percent, failed. In 2012 and 2013, there were 21 referendums, and 13 of them, or 62 percent, passed.
“This suggests,” Downs says, “that supporters have learned how to get the referendums passed. In other words, they have figured out that these are political campaigns and have begun campaigning.”
We suspect, though Downs doesn’t get into it, that districts are learning what to ask for as well as how to ask for it. As we noted after Fort Wayne Community Schools lost a referendum on an extravagant bond issue and won approval for a more modest one, if voters are presented a realistic proposal clearly explained, they are likely to respond affirmatively. But shoot for the moon, and they’re apt to conclude that the district has been wasting their money and will continue to do so.
As school districts continue to feel the pinch caused by changes in state tax laws, they will need more referendums. They’re likely to feel a growing resentment at having to beg voters for bailouts. But they will also understand the growing need for modesty and honesty when it comes to dealing with those voters.
Voter participation in the process is a beautiful thing, not something to be feared. Because we live in a representative democracy, it’s neither wise nor necessary to seek voter approval for every little thing the way California does. That just encourages a tyranny of the majority. But some things are important enough to take to voters. How much of their money is spent is at the top of the list.

Times Reports Michigan City Initiates Belt Tightening in Wake of Borrowing

From the Northwest Indiana Times:

For the first time, Michigan City will have to borrow money from a bank to operate due to continued delays in the countywide property tax billing.
Mayor Ron Meer, imposed a hiring freeze and other measures like restrictions on overtime to limit spending through an executive order and help the city get by the first six months of next year.
In previous years, the city used a combination of casino money and other in-house financial resources to operate until money came in from unofficial provisional bills sent out while the property tax reassessment was being corrected.
This time, though, the estimated bills are not going out, leaving municipalities throughout the county without funds until after official property tax bills go out next year.
Meer said a bank loan will be obtained because there are not enough casino funds and other money combined to cover the income loss. The loan will not exceed $11.9 million and should be enough for the city to operate through June when tax money from the first official bills is expected to start rolling in.
In-house money since 2007 was paid back without interest, but there will be interest on the bank loan.
Unlike previous years, LaPorte County Deputy Treasurer Mike Mauer said no provisional bills are going out in 2014 because the billing is nearly caught up with the official 2012 and 2013 property tax bills, both set to go out in next year.
The 2012 bills should be sent in late January or early February and property owners will be given an extra six months to pay those bills. The 2013 bills are due to go out sometime later in the year, said Mauer.
Under the executive order, no positions in most departments will be filled unless written authorization is given by the mayor. Any spending above $200 must also be approved by the city controller.
Meer said it's possible there could be $4 million to $5 million in redevelopment fund money to borrow and pay back at no interest.

Revenue Announces January 31st at Tax Season Opening Date

Tax Season Opening Date -- The Internal Revenue Service and Indiana Department of Revenue will open the 2014 filing season on Jan. 31. The new opening date for individuals to file their 2013 tax returns will allow the IRS adequate time to program and test its tax processing systems. For more information, click here.

http://www.in.gov/dor/index.htm

Revenue Finds Administrative Hearing Not Proper Place to Raise Constitutional Challenge to Indiana Statute

Excerpts of Revenue's Determination follow:

Taxpayers filed a joint tax return for the year 2012. Taxpayers were assessed a penalty by the Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") for failure to pay estimated quarterly taxes in 2012. The husband filed a protest (therefore, this Letter of Findings will only refer to "Taxpayer" hereinafter).
...

The Department imposed a penalty under IC § 6-3-4-4.1, which states in relevant portion:
 
(b) Every individual who has adjusted gross income subject to the tax imposed by this article and from which tax is not withheld under the requirements of section 8 of this chapter shall make a declaration of estimated tax for the taxable year. However, no such declaration shall be required if the estimated tax can reasonably be expected to be less than one thousand dollars ($1,000). In the case of an underpayment of the estimated tax as provided in Section 6654 of the Internal Revenue Code, there shall be added to the tax a penalty in an amount prescribed by IC 6-8.1-10-2.1(b). (Emphasis added).
The statute references to IC § 6-8.1-10-2.1(b), which states:
(b) Except as provided in subsection (g), the penalty described in subsection (a) is ten percent (10[percent]) of:
(1) the full amount of the tax due if the person failed to file the return;
(2) the amount of the tax not paid, if the person filed the return but failed to pay the full amount of the tax shown on the return;
(3) the amount of the tax held in trust that is not timely remitted;
(4) the amount of deficiency as finally determined by the department; or
(5) the amount of tax due if a person failed to make payment by electronic funds transfer, overnight courier, or personal delivery by the due date.
 
Taxpayer states that he has "never owed federal tax, and therefore have not needed to withhold funds." Taxpayer provided the Department with a copy of his 2012 federal tax return, which shows at line 37 that Taxpayer had adjusted gross income. That line from Form 1040 states:
 
37 Subtract line 36 from line 22. This is your adjusted gross income . . . .
 
Taxpayer also had Indiana adjusted gross income for 2012 and owed over $1,000 in Indiana income tax for 2012. Thus Taxpayer came within the requirements of IC § 6-3-4-4.1.
 
Taxpayer stated in his protest letter that he is "self-employed and do not have any idea from month to month what my income will be or even if I will have any income at all." However, Indiana has a schedule that addresses this issue–Schedule IT-2210A. The IT-40 Booklet for 2012 states:
 
Schedule IT-2210A should be used by individuals who receive income (not subject to withholding tax) unevenly during the year. This schedule will help determine whether a penalty is due, or whether an exception to the penalty has been met.
...
 
Taxpayer states in his protest letter:
 
To fine me for not having withheld the money is an attempt to force withholdings. Withholdings forcibly and unconstitutionally deprive a person of his wealth without cause. The State is demanding the surrender of money fifteen and a half months prior to its due date. Constitutionally, I am to be secure in my person, my papers, and my possessions, yet the State is treating my possessions as its own by demanding, without a warrant, the right to seize funds beginning January of one year that are not due them until mid-April of the following year.
 
Taxpayer is asserting that IC § 6-3-4-4.1 is unconstitutional. The Department does not believe that a tax administrative hearing is the proper venue to make a constitutional challenge to an Indiana statute. The Department also notes that the Indiana Supreme Court has stated that Indiana legislation is presumed to be constitutional. Horseman v. Keller, 841 N.E.2d 164, 170 (Ind. 2006). And finally, the Department notes that Taxpayer did not develop his argument. (See Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480, 485 n.9 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012) (stating in a footnote parenthetical "that poorly developed and non-cogent arguments are subject to waiver" by the Indiana Tax Court) (citing Scopelite v. Indiana Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010)). Taxpayer has not met his burden of proof regarding his protest; Taxpayer's protest is denied.
 

Tax Court Publishes Two Property Tax Assessment Valuation Cases Today

Excerpts of the Tax Court Decisions follow:


The Indiana Board’s final determination, as a preliminary matter, found that the Assessor bore the burden of showing that the 2010 assessment of the subject property was correct under the 5% burden-shifting rule contained in Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2. Neither party presents any real dispute as to this determination on appeal. Grabbe, however, appeals two issues that the Court restates as: (1) whether the Indiana Board’s determination that Grabbe’s evidence failed to make a prima facie case that his assessment should be reduced to $218,862 for the 2010 tax year is supported by substantial and reliable evidence or is contrary to law, and (2) whether the Indiana Board’s determination that Grabbe’s 2010 assessment must be reduced to its 2009 assessed value is contrary to law.

(1)

Grabbe first contends that the Indiana Board’s determination that he failed to make a prima facie case because his evidence consisting of four analyses - an allocation approach, a cost approach, an income approach, and a market data approach - lacked probative value is incorrect. (See Pet’r Br. at 4-6.) As a result, Grabbe requests that the Court reduce his assessment to $218,862 for the 2010 tax year.

This Court has previously explained that when a taxpayer challenges the validity of his assessment he must make a prima facie case by presenting probative evidence regarding the alleged assessment error. See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 468 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005), review denied. Moreover, the Court has explained that evidence is probative if it is “sufficient to establish a given fact that, if not contradicted, will remain sufficient.” Meadowbrook N. Apts. v. Conner, 854 N.E.2d 950, 953 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (citation omitted). Slightly over two years ago, Grabbe initiated an original tax appeal challenging the subject property’s 2009 assessment. See Grabbe v. Carroll Cnty. Assessor (Grabbe I), No. 49T10-1108-TA-51, slip op. at 2 (Ind. Tax Ct. Dec. 31, 2013). In that case, Grabbe presented the same four analyses as here – an allocation approach, a cost approach, an income approach, and a market data approach - to show that his 2009 assessment was incorrect. See id. at 4-11. The Court affirmed the Indiana Board’s finding in the prior appeal that each of Grabbe’s analyses lacked probative value because he failed to show that his analyses comported with generally accepted appraisal principles. See id. at 3-12.

The certified administrative record in this case reveals that Grabbe used the same four analyses to estimate the value of the subject property for the 2010 tax year. (Compare Cert. Admin. R. at 109-12, 117-18, 126, 148-55, 158-67, 212-38, 260-76 and Revised Cert. Admin. R. at 310-13, 317-22 (all regarding Grabbe’s 2010 analyses)) with Grabbe I, No. 49T10-1108-TA-51, slip op., at 4-12 (describing Grabbe’s 2009 analyses). In addition, the administrative record in this case reveals that once again Grabbe did not present evidence to demonstrate that his use of these analyses comported with generally accepted appraisal principles. Consequently, the Court finds that the Indiana Board’s determination that Grabbe failed to make a prima facie case because his evidence lacked probative value is supported by substantial and reliable evidence and is not contrary to law.

(2)

Grabbe also maintains that the Indiana Board’s determination that the 2010 assessment of his property should be the same as the 2009 assessment of his property is contrary to law. Grabbe claims that once the Assessor failed to meet its burden to show that his 2010 assessment was correct under the 5% burden-shifting rule, the Indiana Board should have adopted his uncontradicted valuation of the subject property rather than use the prior year’s assessed value. (See Oral Arg. Tr. at 10; Pet’r Reply Br. at 2, 6-8; Pet’r Br. at 2.) Grabbe reasons that the General Assembly enacted the 5% burden-shifting rule in order to put taxpayers and assessors “on a bit more level playing field.” (Pet’r Reply Br. at 6.) Moreover, Grabbe maintains that the 5% burden-shifting rule does not require that a prior assessment be the default value when an assessing official fails to meet his burden. (See Pet’r Reply Br. at 2, 6-8.)

Here, the Indiana Board first determined that the Assessor failed to establish that the 11% increase to Grabbe’s 2009 assessment for the 2010 tax year was correct. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 63-64.) The Indiana Board also determined that Grabbe’s evidence that his property should be assessed for less than its 2009 assessed value lacked probative value, and therefore, the Indiana Board had no reason to conclude that Grabbe’s valuation of the subject property was indicative of its 2010 market value-in-use. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 64-70.) Accordingly, the Indiana Board applied the subject property’s 2009 assessment, which the Court finds was reasonable …

 


 
...

While Grabbe raises several issues on appeal,the Court restates the dispositive issue as whether the Indiana Board’s final determination must be reversed because it is unsupported by substantial and reliable evidence and is contrary to law. In support of his claim, Grabbe asserts that because he presented probative evidence consisting of his analyses using an allocation approach, a cost approach, an income approach, and a market data approach, the Indiana Board erred in upholding his property’s $274,500 assessment.

The Allocation Approach

Grabbe first provided an alternate value calculation based on the allocated April 17, 2008, sales price of his property. This allocation approach valued the subject property at $218,262 ($30,900 for the land and $187,362 for the hog buildings). (See Cert. Admin. R. at 123-28.) To determine the value of the hog buildings, Grabbe allocated the subject property’s April 17, 2008, sales price of $350,000 between each parcel, valuing the 020 parcel at $146,611 and the 015 parcel at $203,389. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 123-28.) From these figures, Grabbe deducted: (1) the value of the one-acre homesites on each parcel as recorded on the property record cards ($11,240 for the 020 parcel and $3,890 for the 015 parcel); (2) the value of the remaining land, which was based on Grabbe’s “recollection” of the per acre sales price of nearby land ($14,098 for the 020 parcel and $96,831 for the 015 parcel); and (3) the value of the personal property located on the parcels at the time of sale ($9,021 for the 020 parcel and $27,558 for the 015 parcel) based on his 2009 personal property tax returns. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 123-28, 175-80, 313-14, 320-22.)

...

Grabbe did not present any evidence to show that his assumptions about how much of the purchase price to allocate were reliable by relating them, for example, to the market values-in-use of similar properties. See APPRAISAL INST., supra, at 340 (explaining that the allocation approach requires the use of market data). Consequently, the Court finds that the Indiana Board’s determination that Grabbe’s allocation approach lacked probative value was based on substantial evidence and consistent with the law.

The Cost Approach

Grabbe also presented an estimated value of his property using a cost approach analysis, which valued the property at $188,320 ($30,900 for the land and $157,420 for the hog buildings).4 (See Cert. Admin. R. at 208.) Grabbe estimated the value of the property under the cost approach by taking an obsolescence depreciation adjustment for the hog buildings’ antiquated designs and use of lagoon manure storage systems. See note 4. (See also Cert. Admin. R. at 163-72, 322-27.)

The Indiana Board determined that Grabbe’s cost approach lacked probative value because it failed to link the identified causes of obsolescence to an actual loss in property value. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 49-50 (explaining, for example, that Grabbe did not show that a hog facility with a lagoon manure storage system was worth 15% less than a facility with a deep pit manure storage system).) Grabbe, however, claims that the Indiana Board’s rejection of his cost approach seeks the “impossible” with respect to the quantification of obsolescence.


According to Grabbe, that level of evaluation conflicts with current Indiana law that plainly provides that a taxpayer need not submit an appraisal to appeal an assessment. (See Pet’r Br. at 8-9.) See also IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-3(f) (2010).

This Court has repeatedly stated that the valuation of property is the formulation of an opinion, not an exact science. See, e.g., Millennium Real Estate Inv., LLC v. Assessor, Benton Cnty., 979 N.E.2d 192, 197 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012), review denied; Stinson v. Trimas Fasteners, Inc., 923 N.E.2d 496, 502 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010). Nonetheless, Indiana law makes clear that the probative value of an opinion depends on whether the proponent of that opinion has shown that he adhered to generally recognized appraisal principles in formulating the opinion. See Manual at 3, 5. This requirement remains the same whether an assessing official, an appraiser, or a taxpayer is the proponent of the opinion. See, e.g., Inland Steel Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 739 N.E.2d 201, 220 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000) (explaining that an appraiser’s use of a producer price index does not, in and of itself, establish that he complied with generally accepted appraisal standards), review denied. The Indiana Board, therefore, did not adopt an unreasonable requirement or apply some artificially high standard in determining the probative value of Grabbe’s income approach.

Grabbe did not demonstrate that his deduction of property taxes as an expense was proper under generally accepted appraisal standards. See Millennium, 979 N.E.2d at 196-97 (discussing the propriety of deducting property taxes as an expense for ad valorem tax purposes). Moreover, while Grabbe’s evidence provided that the capitalization rates of certain hog facilities ranged from 8% to 20%, he did not provide any evidence demonstrating why a rate of 20% is proper in this case or why the property from which he derived his 20% capitalization rate was comparable to his own property. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 204-07, 301-03.) Consequently, the Court finds that the Indiana Board’s determination that Grabbe’s income approach lacked probative value is supported by substantial and reliable evidence and is not contrary to law.

The Market Data Approach

Finally, Grabbe calculated the value of his property using a market data approach, which valued the subject property at $184,311 based on the sales data from three other hog farms (hereinafter, “the comparison farms”). (See Cert. Admin. R. at 210.) Thus, Grabbe’s market data approach is comparable to the sales comparison approach to value, which “estimates the total value of the property directly by comparing it to similar, or comparable, properties that have sold in the market.” Manual at 3. Grabbe’s market data approach involved four steps:

Step 1) Determined the value of the hog buildings on the comparison farms by deducting from their total sales prices the value of the homes, certain land, and tool sheds on these properties;

 

Step 2) Calculated the “price per pig space” of the hog buildings on the comparison farms by dividing the number of pig spaces in each building by the value of the building as determined in Step 1;

 

Step 3) Determined the value of his hog buildings (which included the value of the personal property) by multiplying their price per pig space8 by their number of pig spaces;

 

Step 4) Arrived at a final estimate of value for his property by adding the value of the land and the value of the hog buildings, and then subtracting the value of the personal property.

 

(See Cert. Admin. R. at 210-17, 304-08.)

The Indiana Board determined that Grabbe’s market data approach lacked probative value because he neither explained nor submitted any documentary evidence to indicate how he determined the value of the homes, the other land, and the tool sheds on the comparison farms. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 50-51.) Grabbe claims, however, that the Indiana Board erred in finding that his market data approach lacked probative value because the certified administrative record contains evidence of the values of those items. (See Pet’r Br. at 10.) To support this claim, Grabbe directs the Court to three photocopied pages of an Indiana Board final determination in another case. (See Pet’r Br. at 10 (citing Ex. 2).) That evidence, however, was not presented to the Indiana Board during the course of the administrative proceedings in this case and, therefore, the Court may not consider it now. See State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. Gatling Gun Club, Inc., 420 N.E.2d 1324, 1326-28 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (explaining that the Court generally may not consider evidence that a taxpayer fails to submit to the Indiana Board); see also IND. CODE § 33-26-6-3 (2010). Accordingly, Grabbe failed to demonstrate that the Indiana Board’s determination that his market data approach lacked probative value is unsupported by substantial and reliable evidence or is contrary to law.

 

 

Monday, December 30, 2013

News-Sentinel Asks "Yes, There is a Problem, But is VMT the Answer?"

From the Fort Wayne News-Sentinel:

So, another new tax rears its ugly head. And it’s being pushed, oddly enough, by the Indiana Chamber of Commerce, a group Hoosiers can usually count on to look skeptically at all new government revenue proposals.
The beast in question is the Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT, tax, and it’s under study in several states and being flirted with by the U.S. Transportation Department. Motorists currently provide road maintenance funds through taxes on gasoline purchases. The basic idea of a VMT is that motorists would be taxed directly on the miles they drive. Supposedly the VMT would be a replacement for the current 18 cents-a-gallon gas tax, but the way these things go, it could be used to supplement that tax, heaven help us.
Where to begin in listing the problems of this proposal?
On first hearing, it seems like an idea even conservatives and libertarians could buy into. It would amount to a user fee, with the biggest users paying the most money. Who doesn’t see the fairness of that? But the current system already taxes drivers by the number of miles they drive, if indirectly. Those who drive the most buy the most gasoline, do they not?
The current system also has the advantage of encouraging fuel efficiency. Those who drive, say, a hybrid getting 46 miles per gallon face a lot less pain at the gas pump than those who drive a 16 miles-per-gallon pickup. And the higher gas prices go, the more people buy fuel-efficient cars.
The current system is simplicity itself. You buy gas, you pay the tax, period. The new system would be, to put it kindly, complicated. Motorists would either have to keep detailed records of their driving or have a GPS device installed that is accessible by government officials on demand.
“Accessible on demand” – just think about that for a moment. Even in ordinary times, that would have Orwellian implications. And after revelations that the National Security Agency is doing everything it can to keep tabs on all of us, the idea that the government will know everything about our travel is downright scary.
Yes, there is a legitimate problem to address. Because of greater fuel efficiency, the slow economy, rising gasoline prices and other factors, necessary highway funding is down; if electric cars become a part of our future, the problem will just get worse.
But let’s be careful not to create more problems than we solve. The Indiana Chamber hastens to say it is only recommending the state study the possibility of a VMT. Fine. Study it for a long, long time. Study it to death.

Ladwig: Strapped Local Government? Try Setting Priorities

By Craig Ladwig in the Clark County News and Tribune:

— Did you hear them, the howls of pain from local officials on announcement that the Gov. Mike Pence administration would phase out their golden goose, the business personal property tax?

The governor thinks it will level the playing field, attract investment, create jobs.

Please know that the anguish is genuine. The amount of revenue to be lost — about a billion dollars a year statewide — cannot be finessed. County and city officeholders may have to set priorities; they may have to decide what local government should and should not be doing and then explain it to a constituency.

If you assume that your councilman is doing that already, you might double-check. In my county, public officials have reduced responsibility to a scheme: 1. a budget crisis is spotted on the horizon; 2. the political and fiscal costs are carefully tallied; 3. everybody sits tight until the only option left is to raise taxes.

Legislators, alas, are in on it. Even the Republicans operate on a “revenue neutral” basis, meaning government must be compensated for any lost revenue. Before the governor could make his announcement, Sen. Brandt Hershman, R-Buck Creek, the chairman of the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee, was warning that “absent finding a replacement revenue source that mitigates the impact (of cutting the business personal property tax) we have to be cautious.”

Instead of guarding his revenue stream, Hershman might be introducing “core functions” legislation. Such proposals are being considered in several states as a way to organize the discussion around the question of “what, exactly, is the job of local government?”
...

See the full article here:

http://www.newsandtribune.com/columns/x1353070764/LADWIG-Strapped-local-government-Try-setting-priorities

Truth Reports Elkhart Schools React to Tax Caps with Referendum Proposal

From the Elkhart Truth:

Like other public schools in Indiana, Elkhart Community Schools has less money than it did before the state mandated a cap on property taxes starting in 2009. And like other schools, Elkhart has a strategy in place to deal with the situation.

“The strategy is, we have just decreased what we are doing,” Doug Hasler, executive director of support service for Elkhart Community Schools, said.

That means that more students are walking to school, some up to two miles one way. It means that students who do catch a bus to school may have to walk up to half a mile to their bus stop. 

There are fewer Elkhart buses on the road now — less than 100, where there used to be 120. And the buses that are still picking up students are older. 

“We have not bought any buses this year, and we are likely to not buy any buses in 2014 either,” Hasler said, noting that Indiana says a bus is good for 12 years.

...

The corporation is considering a referendum — meaning a tax hike for local residents, if it’s approved — to help meet some of its financial needs. 

On Jan. 6, the school board will host a public hearing to discuss the specifics of what a referendum would mean for the corporation — how much money is needed, and what projects need funding the most.

Hasler said that the referendum proposal could include projects that the capital projects fund had traditionally paid for. But high on the list of priorities for the district is transportation. 

“We are looking to replace losses (to the transportation fund), which are currently at $1 million but could go up to $2 million in 2014, and go back to our former walk zone of 1.5 miles,” Hasler said. 

Superintendent Rob Haworth has said that the issue of transportation is close to his heart, and he hopes that a referendum to fund transportation operating costs for a period of seven years will be supported by taxpayers. 

Hasler said that the corporation feels it is “struggling with something that we cannot change” when it comes to tax caps. Administration is working with local and state legislators on solutions that might help schools, he said, but for Elkhart, for now — “We see the referendum process as the only option we have.”

The public is invited to attend a hearing on the referendum at 7 p.m. Monday, Jan. 6, at the J.C. Rice Educational Services Center, 2720 California Road.

http://www.elkharttruth.com/article/20131225/NEWS01/712259958

Commission on State Tax and Financing Policy Publishes Annual Report

Excerpts of the Commission's Report follow:

II. INTRODUCTION AND REASONS FOR STUDY

The Legislative Council assigned topics of study outlined above to the Commission that had been requested by a legislator in a bill or resolution considered in the 2013 session of the General Assembly. (Note: The tax credit review was requested in a bill enacted in the 2012 session of the General Assembly.)

In addition to the topics of study assigned by the Legislative Council, the Commission also studied the following topics pursuant to its statutory authority:

(1) The use of tax increment financing (TIF).
(2) The issue of a supplier discriminating against consumers based on the price of promotion of goods to retailers by refusing to sell to a retailer a good at the same price that the supplier sells the good to any other retailer. (SEA 382-2013)

III. SUMMARY OF WORK PROGRAM

The Commission met at the State House in Indianapolis on November 13, 2013, November 18, 2013, December 2, 2013, and December 3, 2013. The meeting on December 2, 2013, was a joint meeting with the Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.

IV. SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY

The Commission heard testimony from state agencies, trade associations, advocacy groups, local governments, representatives from higher education, business persons, and interested individuals on the following:

Local Taxes:

1. Effect of circuit breaker credits on unprotected taxes of school corporations and other local units.
2. Development and impact of proposed soil productivity factors for assessment of agricultural land.
3. Use of TIF by local units and the extent to which levies are allocated to TIF districts.
4. Collection and distribution of local option income taxes.
5. Estimated impact of the property tax circuit breaker in 2014 and 2015.

State Taxes:

1. Examination of the use and impact of the following state income tax credits.
• 21 Century Scholars Program Tax Credit st
• Biodiesel Production Tax Credit
• Coal Gasification Technology Investment Tax Credit
• Ethanol Production Tax Credit
• Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit
• Indiana College Contribution Tax Credit
• Indiana Insurance Guaranty Association Tax Credit
• Indiana 529 College Savings Contribution Tax Credit
• Individual Development Account Tax Credit
• Lake County Residential Property Tax Credit
• Neighborhood Assistance Tax Credit
• Prison Investment Tax Credit
• Residential Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit
• Research Expense Tax Credit
• Riverboat Building Tax Credit
• School Scholarship Contribution Tax Credit
• Unified Tax Credit for the Elderly
2. Employment and educational levels of ex-felons, and the potential efficacy of an income tax credit for businesses that employ ex-felons.

Local Government Administration:

1. Benefits, costs, and limitations to local units from publishing budget documents and information.
2. Flexibility of local units in managing budgets.
3. Accounting by local units pursuant to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
4. Budget review of appointed library boards by county councils.
5. Changes to adjoining library district boundaries.
6. Determining and reporting the administrative costs of providing township assistance.
7. Land bank issues.

Other:

1. Price discrimination by suppliers of goods to retailers.

V. COMMITTEE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Commission did not make any findings of fact or recommendations and did not adopt a final report.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/interim/committee/reports/STFPGB1.pdf

Board Finds Respondent with Burden Failed to Support Property's Assessed Value with Income Capitalization Analysis

Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow:


The 2011 assessment was $54,400.00 and the 2012 assessment was $119,900. This increase is more than 5%. Moreover, in this case the parties agree the Respondent has the burden of proving the 2012 assessment is correct.
b. It is appropriate to consider the historic and projected income and expense data of the property in question. Unfortunately, in this case, such information is not in the record. It is also necessary to consider data from other comparable properties in order to make accurate, realistic projections about the income stream. Where the income and expense data for the subject property is out of step with what the market data shows, generally accepted appraisal principles require further examination and analysis. Considering both types of income and expense data helps to protect against distortions and inaccurate value estimates caused by extraneous factors (such as bad management or poor business decisions) that really have nothing to do with the inherent value of a property.

c. The Respondent failed to establish that the purported income capitalization valuation shown in her calculations conforms to generally accepted appraisal principles. The capitalization rate used by the Respondent is a national rate obtained from the two mobile home park appeals that obtained the rates from RealtyRates.com. The capitalization rate used by the Respondent in this case is not probative evidence without a meaningful explanation as to how information obtained from a national source relates to the market in Jennings County. A relevant, credible capitalization rate needs to be more representative of the local market than one based on a national average.

d. Similarly, the Respondent failed to establish that the net operating income her calculations attribute to the subject property actually conforms to generally accepted appraisal principles. Her conclusion about a 30% income to expense ratio appears to be based on very little substantial evidence. And it is not clear how the Respondent arrived at her hypothetical rent rates of $125, $150, and $175 considering the mobile home park appeals that she relied on had rates of $220 and $165. Again, the Respondent failed to adequately support how she arrived at these figures upon which the entire income approach for this assessment was based.

e. The Respondent failed to present a prima facie case that the current assessment is correct. As a result, the Petitioner’s duty to provide substantial evidence to support a more accurate assessment is not triggered. See Lacy Diversified Indus. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 799 N.E.2d 1215, 1221-1222 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003); Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113,1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).

f. In other cases where the Respondent had the burden to prove the assessment is correct and the Respondent failed to carry that burden, the Board has ordered that the assessment be returned to the assessed value of the year before. Therefore, the assessment will be changed to that value.

Revenue Finds Taxpayer's "Conclusory Statements" Failed to Support Claim Income Taxes Over-Assessed

Excerpts of Revenue's Determination follow:

Taxpayer operates a welding business as a sole proprietorship. The Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") conducted an income tax investigation of Taxpayer for the 2010 and 2011 tax years. After the investigation, the Department determined that Taxpayer owed additional individual income tax and assessed tax for the 2010 and 2011 tax years. Taxpayer protested the assessment.
...

The Department conducted an audit of Taxpayer's business records and tax returns. After reviewing the Taxpayer's documents, the Department determined that Taxpayer had under-reported its gross income. Therefore, the Department made the appropriate adjustments.
 
Taxpayer disagreed with the amounts that the Department determined were owed. Taxpayer presented amended Indiana income tax returns for each of the tax years in question to provide revised schedules of income. While the revised returns attempted to close the gap between Taxpayer's reported income and the income determined by the Department, neither the Taxpayer nor Taxpayer's representative provided the additional documentation to support all of the adjustments proposed on these revised Indiana returns nor to support Taxpayer's position regarding Taxpayer's under-reporting.
 
Taxpayer has the obligation to prepare a careful, methodical, and detailed factual presentation of the evidence sufficient to refute the conclusions contained within the Department's investigation report. In order to meet its burden, the taxpayer must "walk" the Hearing Officer through each element of the taxpayer's proffered evidence; Taxpayer does not meet its burden by presenting amended returns, without invoices, receipts, daily recaps, or other supporting documentation. Amended returns, without more, only serve as conclusory statements in the hope that those returns or statements will speak for themselves. Taxpayer's amended returns and additional explanation proffered during the hearing do not sufficiently refute the information or the results reached by the Department. Therefore, Taxpayer's protest to the imposition of income tax based upon the general acceptance of the amended returns is denied.
 

Herald-Bulletin Reports Madison County to Accept Monthly Property Tax Payments

From the Anderson Herald-Bulletin:

No one likes to pay taxes, but property owners in Madison County may find it easier to make annual property tax payments starting next year.
County Treasurer Kelly Gaskill said a new program should be up and running to allow property owners to make monthly payments on property taxes through an agreement with Star Financial Bank.
“We’re modeling the program after Allen County,” Gaskill said. “There are currently five counties that accept monthly payments.”
Gaskill met with the Allen County Treasurer’s office which was the first in the state to implement the program. Howard County was the second Indiana county to adopt the system in 2011 and in the first few months 92 property owners had signed up for the program.
There is no charge to taxpayers to be a part of the program.
“We have a lot of people on fixed incomes,” Gaskill said.
The program is expected to begin Feb. 1. Taxpayers have to go online and create an account which transfers funds on a monthly basis to a Star Financial account. The system will also allow for one-time payments of property taxes or schedule the payments on May 10 and Nov. 10, the due date for payment.
“Realistically I hope 1,000 people sign-up for the program,” Gaskill said. “This is a benefit for people. As long as the monthly payment is made there are no penalties or interest charged.”
Rick Brown, chief deputy, said the system is currently being tested. He said once the system is operating taxpayers can set up accounts at www.treasurer.madisoncounty48.us
Gaskill said the Madison County Council and Madison County Commissioners have approved the concept.
...

Friday, December 27, 2013

News and Tribune Argues States Should Rethink Big Tax Breaks to Companies

From the Clark County News and Tribune:

Sometime early next year, Boeing will make one state very happy and more than a dozen others very sad. It will select the location for a new manufacturing plant to build its 777X airliner, gifting what it promises will be thousands of good-paying jobs to the winner.
Those jobs are shaping up to be one of the most sought-after economic development prizes of 2014. Every state that covets them is, at Boeing's urging, preparing a package of tax breaks and other government incentives, reaching into the billions of dollars. It's the latest example of a decade-long trend: As good jobs have become harder to find, states have approved bigger economic handouts to attract or keep individual companies.
New economic research suggests that's often not a good idea, and it implies that states could be bidding too much to attract the Boeing plant.
Two economists — Owen Zidar, a doctoral candidate at the University of California at Berkeley, and Juan Carlos Suarez Serrato, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University — write in a forthcoming paper that companies aren't nearly as mobile as economists have long assumed. Cutting taxes, they conclude, might not be the best way to boost firms' bottom lines and keep them around.
As Zidar put it in a recent interview, the research "throws some cold water" on the idea that higher tax rates on businesses always push companies away, whether to other states or other countries.
"Corporate taxes," he said, "aren't as bad as we thought."
Economic models have long assumed that taxing businesses hurts workers and local economies because companies can operate more or less anywhere and workers can't always move to follow the jobs.
The growing concern that any big employer could pack up and leave town has led states to approve lucrative incentive packages to attract or retain companies. Indiana recently cut corporate taxes and has aggressively courted companies from neighboring Illinois, following the example of Texas. Oregon, on the other hand, called a special legislative session last year to approve a tax-incentive package mainly targeted at retaining Nike's headquarters.
Boeing has upped the stakes. According to a company document obtained and reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Boeing is asking states to foot most or all of the bill for a new facility that could cost $10 billion, and for tax breaks and training for its workers. Suitors are already opening their wallets.
...
See the full article here:

IBJ: Pence Wants Tax Credit for Adoptive Parents

From the Indianapolis Business Journal:

Gov. Mike Pence wants Indiana lawmakers to create a state tax credit that would help parents offset adoption expenses.

The Evansville Courier & Press reports Pence's proposal calls for taxpayers benefiting from the federal adoption credit would be able to claim an additional credit on their state tax return.

Pence also wants an interim study committee to explore faith-based and community adoption programs and how to better connect the state's adoption services. Pence has said he wants Indiana to become nation's "most pro-adoption state."

Sharon Pierce, president and CEO of The Villages, the state's largest not-for-profit child and family services agency, says she is supportive of Pence's plan. Pierce says the organization also would like to see lawmakers bring back a state adoption subsidy.

http://www.ibj.com/pence-wants-tax-credit-for-adoptive-parents/PARAMS/article/45277

Board Finds Respondent with Burden Failed to Support Property's Assessed Value

Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow:


The 2011 assessment was $91,400.00 and the 2012 assessment was $118,100.00. This increase is more than 5%. Moreover, the parties agree the Respondent has the burden of proving the 2012 assessment is correct.


c. To support the assessment, the Respondent offered a comparative market analysis that examined three nearby properties. It concluded the average square foot value of those properties was $116. Resp’t Ex. 6.

d. The comparative market analysis relies on the sales comparison approach to establish value. In order to use a sales-comparison approach as evidence in an assessment appeal one must first show that the properties being examined are comparable to each other. Conclusory statements that a property is “similar” or “comparable” to another property are not probative evidence. Long, 821 N.E.2d at 470-471. Instead, one must identify the characteristics of the property under appeal and explain how those characteristics compare to the characteristics of the purportedly comparable properties. Similarly, one must explain how any differences between the properties affect their relative market values-in-use. Id. This is especially true where, as in this appeal, the sales prices of the alleged comparable properties range from $85,000 to $197,500. Here, the comparative market analysis offers only a minimal description of the homes’ features.

e. Undisputed testimony from the Petitioners identified significant differences among the homes, yet the Respondent offered no additional comparison of the properties or an analysis of the impact on value resulting from these differences. Further, the Respondent’s witness testified sales from 2011 and 2012 were to be examined for the 2012 assessment. Two of the identified sales, however, occurred in 2010, yet the comparative market analysis showed no adjustment for time of sale. Accordingly, this comparative market analysis is of no probative value.

f. The Board has generally held that if the burden-shifting statute applies, the assessor’s failure to prove that the assessment was correct requires lowering the property’s value to the previous year’s level, in this case $91,400. The Petitioners, however, asserted the correct assessment should be $95,000, which approximates both the prior year’s assessment and the middle of the range of values provided by the Petitioners. Under these circumstances, the Board will not make the assessed value less than the Petitioners claimed. The total assessment therefore will be reduced to the value proposed by the Petitioners, $95,000.

http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Smith_06-010-12-1-5-00591.pdf

Indiana Public Media Reports Chamber Proposes New Tax for Drivers

From Indiana Public Media:

Tax revenue from gasoline and diesel fuels help pay for road and highway maintenance in Indiana. But shrinking revenues has officials in several states looking for new ways to fund road maintenance.
Every time you fill up your gas tank, you’re paying taxes. There’s a 7 percent sales tax and then there’s the 18 cent gasoline tax. Neither of them are indexed to inflation, nor have they been adjusted in a decade.
Some in Indiana say that’s a problem. Indiana Department of Transportation spokesperson Will Wingfield says the revenues from the fuel tax pay for the maintenance of Indiana’s roads and highways.
“There has been a decline in fuel tax revenue as a result of increasing gas prices,” Wingfield said. “More fuel efficient vehicles and various economic factors.”
The Indiana Chamber of Commerce recently laid out legislative proposals they’ll be pushing in 2014. One of them is a push for the Indiana legislature to start investigating a new concept that’s been brought up in other states – the Vehicle Miles Traveled tax, or VMT tax. The basic idea is that motorists are taxed directly on the miles they drive, instead of indirectly on the fuel they buy.
Chamber of Commerce vice president Cameron Carter says VMT is a way for states to keep up with changing vehicle technology.
“Fuel taxes today do not capture the new propulsion technologies that we’re experiencing,” Carter said. “I mean if you only fund your roads and highways through a gasoline excise tax, and in the future we’re all driving electric cars, then who pays for the roads?”
...

Tribune Reports Michigan City to Borrow Money Due to Continued Delays in Countywide Property Tax Billing

From the South Bend Tribune:

For the first time, Michigan City will have to borrow money from a bank to operate because of continued delays in the countywide property tax billing.

In an executive order issued Thursday by Mayor Ron Meer, a hiring freeze and other measures such as restrictions on overtime were imposed to limit spending to help the city get by on someone else's money during the first six months of 2014.
 
In previous years, the city used a combination of casino money and other in-house financial resources to operate until money came in from unofficial provisional bills while the property tax reassessment was being corrected.
 
This time, however, the estimated bills are not going out, leaving municipalities throughout the county without any funds whatsoever until after official property tax bills go out next year.
 
Meer said the city will have to obtain a bank loan because there are not enough casino funds and other monies combined to cover the income loss.
 
The loan will not exceed $11.9 million and should be enough for the city to operate through June, when tax monies from the first official bills in years are expected to start rolling in.
 
LaPorte County deputy treasurer Mike Mauer said no provisional bills are going out in 2014 because the billing is nearly caught up with the official 2012 and 2013 property tax bills both set to go out in 2014.
 
The 2012 bills should be sent in late January or early February, and property owners will be given an extra six months to pay those bills.

http://www.southbendtribune.com/news/politics/michigan-city-to-borrow-money/article_d080b778-6e6c-11e3-8645-001a4bcf6878.html

Tax Court Finds No Three Year Limitation on Filing Petition to Correct Errors

Excerpts of the Tax Court determination follow:

II. Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief Can be Granted

A. Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-12 – Petition to Correct Error Statute '

 The Assessor first contends that the Hutchersons failed to state a claim upon which the court can grant relief because the Petition to Correct Error Statute requires a taxpayer to file a petition to correct error within three years after the taxes were first due. (See Resp’t Mot. Dismiss at 2-4.) Conspicuously absent from the Petition to Correct Error Statute, however, is an express time limitation within which a taxpayer must file the petition. See generally IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-12 (2013). Moreover, no statutory language limiting the time in which to file a petition to correct error exists anywhere in Chapter 15. See IND. CODE 6-1.1-15 (2013).

 In 1989, the State Board of Tax Commissioners promulgated a regulation interpreting the Petition to Correct Error Statute. 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 4.2-3-12 (1989) (repealed 2000). Prior to its repeal on April 1, 2000, this regulation provided a limitation period for filing a petition to correct error, stating that “[w]hile a taxpayer may petition for a correction of error if an error exists, there is a three (3) year limitation on claiming a refund of tax as provided in this article.” 50 I.A.C. 4.2-3-12(g)(4). After 50 Indiana Administrative Code 4.2-3-12 was repealed, new regulations were promulgated in both 2000 and 2009, regarding the Petition to Correct Error Statute. See 23 Ind. Reg. 1608 (Apr. 1, 2000); Ind. Reg. LSA Doc. No. 08-603(F) (Feb. 11, 2009) (see http://www.in.gov/legislative/register/irtoc.htm) (stating that the 2000 regulations were superseded by 52 Indiana Administrative Code 2). Neither promulgation included a time limitation for filing a petition to correct error. See generally 23 I.R. 1608-17; 52 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2 (2013) (see http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/)

 In spite of the absence of a time limit in the Petition to Correct Error Statute and the interpretive regulations that were in effect when the Hutchersons filed their petitions, the Assessor persists in claiming the Hutchersons’ petitions were untimely. The Assessor supports this claim by relying on the decision in Will’s Far-Go Coach Sales v. Nusbaum, 847 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). (See Resp’t Mot. Dismiss at 2.) This case finds that a petition to correct error must be filed within three years after the taxes were first due. Will’s Far-Go, 847 N.E.2d at 1075. Will’s Far-Go, however, involves tax periods prior to the repeal of 50 Indiana Administrative Code 4.2-3-12 on April 1, 2000. See id. at 1078 (concerning the 1995 and 1996 tax periods). Consequently, this case does not apply to the years at issue.

 The Court may not construe a statute that is unambiguous. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. Horizon Bancorp, 644 N.E.2d 870, 872-73 (Ind. 1994). Indeed, “[n]othing may be read into a statute which is not within the manifest intention of the legislature as gathered from the statute itself.” Id. at 872 (citation omitted). In other words, “[t]he court may not expand or contract the meaning of a statute by reading into it language to correct supposed omissions or defects. The court may not invade the domain of the legislature, nor ‘substitute language which it feels the legislature may have intended.’” Caylor-Nickel Clinic, P.C. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 569 N.E.2d 765, 769 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1991) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the Court refuses to read a limitation period into Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-12 where neither the legislature nor the authorized administrative agency provided one.

B. Indiana Code § 6-1.1-26-1 – Refund Statute

 The Assessor further contends that the Hutchersons’ claim is time barred by the Refund Statute, which states:

Sec. 1. A person, or his heirs, personal representative, or successors, may file a claim for the refund of all or a portion of a tax installment which he has paid. However, the claim must be:

(1) filed with the auditor of the county in which the taxes were originally paid;

(2) filed within three (3) years after the taxes were first due;

(3) filed on the form prescribed by the state board of accounts and approved by the department of local government finance; and

(4) based upon one (1) of the following grounds:

(A) Taxes on the same property have been assessed and paid more than once for the same year.

(B) The taxes, as a matter of law, were illegal.

(C) There was a mathematical error either in the computation of the assessment upon which the taxes were based or in the computation of the taxes.

IND. CODE § 6-1.1-26-1 (2013). (See Resp’t Mot. Dismiss at 4.) The Refund Statute expressly imposes a three year limitation period for filing a claim for a refund. I.C. § 6-1.1-26-1(2). The Assessor asserts that the statute of limitations contained in the Refund Statute applies to the Hutchersons’ petitions to correct error because the remedy they seek, although unspecified other than by the word “correct,” can be only a refund or a credit. (Resp’t Notice Add’l Authority at 1 (citing Gundersen v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 831 N.E.2d 1274, 1276 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (stating that the term “refund,” as used for purposes of income tax withholding under Indiana Code § 6-3-4-8(h), encompasses the return of all excess payments regardless of form)).)

Accordingly, the Assessor reasons that because the petition to correct error assumes the remedy would be a refund, as defined by Gundersen, the limitation period from the Refund Statute must be incorporated into the Petition to Correct Error Statute. The Assessor’s reasoning is incorrect.

 First, as mentioned above, the Petition to Correct Error Statute contains no express limitation period. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-12. Accordingly, without a specific reference to the provisions of the Refund Statute in the Petition to Correct Error Statute, the Court cannot presume that the Legislature intended to incorporate provisions of the Refund Statute into the Petition to Correct Error Statute. Caylor-Nickel, 569 N.E.2d at 769 (providing that statutory language is deemed intentionally chosen by the legislature and the Court will not read in language that has been omitted).

 Second, disparate requirements contained in the Refund Statute and Petition to Correct Error suggest their independence. The Refund Statute allows a taxpayer to file a claim for refund on a prescribed form (Form 17T) for three enumerated reasons, while the Petition to Correct Error Statute requires a county auditor to correct errors discovered in the tax duplicate for any of eight stated grounds. Compare I.C. § 6-1.1-26-1(4) (three possible grounds) with I.C. §§ 6-1.1-15-12(a)(1)-(8) (eight possible grounds). Moreover, an error of omission by a county officer, as is the Hutchersons’ claim, is not an enumerated ground for which a refund can be sought under the Refund Statute, but is a proper ground for filing a petition to correct error. See I.C. § 6-1.1-26-1(4); I.C. § 6-1.1-15-12(a)(8).

 Finally, even if the word “correct” falls within Gundersen’s broad definition of the word “refund,” and thus operates to incorporate the requirements of the Refund Statute into the Petition to Correct Error Statute, the result would be an absurdity. The Court cannot select one provision from a statute for incorporation into another statute without the express direction of a statute or other authority. See Enterprise Leasing Co. of Chicago v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 779 N.E.2d 1284, 1294 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2002) (“[g]enerally, the best evidence of [the] intent [of the Legislature] is found in the language of the statute” (citation omitted)). Finding none here, the Court would have to incorporate all of the Refund Statute’s provisions, not just the time limitation provision. As a result, express distinctions between the two statutes would be lost and rendered meaningless. See id, 779 N.E.2d at 1294 (“[t]he Court will avoid an interpretation that renders any part of the statute meaningless or superfluous” (citation omitted)). The Court will not countenance such an absurdity. Board of Comm’rs v. Vincent, 988 N.E.2d 1280, 1282 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013) (legislative enactments are to be construed in a manner that does not create an absurdity); Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 597 N.E.2d 1327, 1332 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1992) (“[t]he court must assume that the legislature intended to adopt a meaningful statute and not an absurdity” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). Thus, the time limitation in the Refund Statute does not apply to the Hutchersons’ petitions to correct error, and accordingly, the Hutchersons’ petitions were timely filed.

The Court is well aware that this decision has the potential to open the floodgates for petition to correct error appeals by finding, as it must, that no statutory or regulatory time limitation exists after April 1, 2000. Moreover, the Court strongly supports the important public policy favoring limitations of claims. See Gundersen, 831 N.E.2d at 1276 (stating that the court favors a statute of limitations because it provides security against stale claims). Nonetheless, the Court declines to invade the domain of the Legislature and write in a limitations period where none exists. See Caylor-Nickel, 569 N.E.2d at 769. It is the role of our elected Legislature, not of the Judiciary, to determine public policy. See Boehm v. Town of St. John, 675 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ind. 1996) (“the legislature has wide latitude in determining public policy, and we do not substitute our belief as to the wisdom of a particular statute for [that] of the legislature” (quotation marks and citation omitted)). The Court ardently urges the Legislature or the Department of Local Government Finance to act with all haste to provide security against stale claims arising under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-12.

CONCLUSION

For all the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES the Assessor’s Motion to Dismiss the Hutchersons’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Moreover, the Tax Court REVERSES the Indiana Board’s final determination that the Hutchersons’ petitions to correct error for 2004 through 2007 were untimely, and REMANDS for action consistent with this opinion.