c) Here, the subject property received the homestead
standard deduction for the 2010 and 2011 tax years. The parties agree that the
subject property was not the Petitioner’s homestead and therefore did not
qualify for the homestead standard deduction. Because the property did not
qualify for the deduction, the County Auditor was within his or her authority,
under Ind. Code § 6-1.1-12-37(f), to remove the deduction and bill the
Petitioner for the taxes that would have been owed if no error existed. Whether
the Petitioner actually filed for the deduction has no bearing on the County
Auditor’s authority to correct the error.
d) As for the penalty imposed by the county, the Board lacks
the authority to address the Petitioner’s claim. The Board is a creation of the
legislature, and it has only those powers conferred by statute. Matonovich v.
State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 705 N.E.2d 1093, 1096 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999). The
relevant statute reads:
(a) The Indiana board shall conduct an impartial review of
all appeals concerning:
(1) the assessed valuation of tangible property;
(2) property tax deductions;
(3) property tax exemptions;
(4) property tax credits;
that are made from a determination by an assessing official
or county property tax assessment board of appeals to the Indiana board under any
law.
(b) Appeals described in this section shall be conducted
under IC 6-1.1-15.
Ind. Code § 6-1.5-4-1.
e) The Tax Court has held the
Board’s enabling statute “did not grant any power to the State Board to review
penalties imposed by the County for the late payment of property taxes,”
because it contemplated only a review of assessments, deductions, exemptions,
and credits. Whetzel, 761 N.E.2d 904.
f) Given the clear language of Whetzel, the Board lacks the
subject matter jurisdiction to afford the Petitioner relief with regards to the
penalties attached to his bill for back taxes.
g) The Petitioner failed to make a prima facie case for
striking his bill for back taxes owed and for removing the penalties imposed
with that bill.
