20. Taxpayers have two methods to
appeal an assessment: a Petition for Review of Assessment (Form 131) authorized
by Indiana Code section 6-1.1-15-1, or a Petition for Correction of Error (Form
133) authorized by Indiana Code section 6-1.1-15-12. “A taxpayer that
challenges a property assessment bears the responsibility of using the appropriate
method.” Franchise Realty Corp. v. Indiana Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 682 N.E. 2d
832, 833 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997) (citing Bender v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs,
676 N.E.2d 1113, 1114 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997)).
21. A taxpayer can file a Form
131 challenging any element of an assessment, but the appeal must be initiated
within 45 days receiving notice of the assessment, or by May 10 of the assessment
year, whichever is later. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-1(b).
22. The time for filing a Form
133 is longer.1 The issues that can be raised with a Form 133, however, are
limited. A taxpayer may file a 133 Petition to correct only objective errors in
an assessment. It is not for changes that require subjective judgment. Ind.
Code § 6-1-15-12; O’Neal Steel v. Vanderburgh Co. Property Tax Assessment
Board of Appeals, 791 N.E.2d 857, 860 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003); Bender,
676 N.E.2d at 1114. Section 12 provides an avenue for correcting objective
mistakes in an assessment, not errors in subjective judgment. Ind. Code §
6-1-15-12.
23. A determination is objective
if it hinges on a simple, true or false finding of fact. See Bender, 676
N.E.2d at 1115. “[W]here a simple finding of fact does not dictate the result and
discretion plays role, [the] decision is considered subjective and may not be challenged
through a Form 133 filing.” Id.
24. The Petitioner did not allege
an error delineated in Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-12. The Petitioner did allege that
the Assessor erred in arriving at the schedule selection used to assess the
property. Specifically, the Petitioner claimed that “[t]he improvement at this property
is not a single family – but a garage.” See Form 133 Petitions. In
essence, the Petitioner is challenging the schedule selection by the Assessor
to arrive at the assessment.
25. Unlike an objective error
that is clear on its face, a schedule selection involves subjective judgment by
the assessor based on characteristics of the property. A Form 133 petition is not
the appropriate petition in which to challenge such an error. A simple finding
of fact does not dictate the result in determining schedule and discretion
plays a role, as the Respondent’s testimony illustrates. Schedule selection is
subjective and may not be challenged through a Form 133 filing. The
determination of which schedule to use does not fall into any of the categories
in Ind. Code § 6-1-15-12. In Bender, 676 N.E. 2d at 1116, the Tax Court
explained:
Clearly, the assessor must use
his judgment in determining which schedule to use. It is not a decision
automatically mandated by a straightforward finding of fact. The assessor must
consider the property in question, including its physical attributes and predominant
use, and make a judgment as to which schedule is most appropriate. Just as the
assessor must use subjective judgment to determine which base price model to
employ within these schedules, so too the assessor must exercise his or her discretion
to determine which schedule to use. In some cases, this decision will be a
closer call than in others, but regardless of the closeness of the judgment, it
remains a judgment committed to the discretion of the assessor. (Citations
omitted).
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Drake_91-015-07-3-5-00001_etc_BH.pdf
