Board Finds Purchase too Remote to Prove Property's Value

Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow:

The Petitioners contended the 2012 land assessment should be reduced to either the land assessment for 2013 which was $116,900, or to $96,000. With respect to the contention that the land assessment should be reduced to the 2013 land assessment, each assessment and each tax year, however, stand alone. Fleet Supply, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 747 N.E.2d 645, 650 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001) (citing Glass Wholesalers, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 568 N.E.2d 1116, 1124 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1991)). Thus, evidence as to a property’s assessment in one tax year is not probative of its true tax value in a different tax year. See Id. And, regarding the contention that the land assessment should be decreased to $96,000, the Petitioners failed to provide any evidence to support this number.

c. The Petitioners further asserted they purchased the land for $139,000 in 2007. Regardless of the method used to rebut an assessment’s presumption of accuracy, a party must explain how its evidence relates to the subject property’s market value-in-use as of the relevant valuation date. O’Donnell v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin.,854 N.E.2d 90, 95 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006); see also Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). For the March 1, 2012, assessment, the valuation date was March 1, 2012. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-4-4.5(f); 50 IAC 27-5-2(c). Here, the Petitioners offered no explanation to relate the 2007 purchase price to the March 1, 2012, valuation date. Accordingly, this testimony is of no probative value. See Id.

d. The Petitioners presented a property record card from a neighboring property, contending the assessments should be similar. A party to an appeal proceeding may introduce evidence of assessments of comparable properties located in the same taxing district or within two miles of the boundary of the taxing district. The determination of whether the properties are comparable shall be based on generally accepted appraisal and assessment principles. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-18.

e. In order to rely on this evidence in an assessment appeal a party 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 of the properties’ comparability. Long v. Wayne Township Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005). 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. The Petitioners failed to offer a meaningful comparison of the parcels in terms of characteristics that would affect their relative markets values-in-use. Here, other than showing that this property was comparable in size to the subject property, the Petitioners failed to show how the comparable lot was in fact comparable. Eggleston testimony.

f. The Petitioners also asserted that property values were declining in their subdivision. The Petitioners, however, presented no probative market evidence to support this contention. Unsubstantiated conclusions do not constitute probative evidence. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).

g. In this appeal, the taxpayers failed to provide probative evidence supporting their position that the land assessment should be decreased below the prior year land assessment.

http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Eggleston_06-003-12-1-5-00253.pdf

Palladium-Item Reports Bill Urges Examination of Financial Impact on Schools

From the Richmond Palladium-Item:

A bill suggested by Richmond educators and authored by State Sen. Allen Paul unanimously passed the Senate Committee on Local Government last week.

Senate Bill 353 urges the examination of policies enacted by the General Assembly and their financial impact on local communities and school corporations.

The areas of study will focus on legislation that impacts schools, ranging from education legislation and tax reforms to social mobility and the recent economic recession. The bill now moves to the Indiana Senate for consideration.

Richmond Community Schools Superintendent Allen Bourff suggested the need for legislation that would require a review of legislative decisions on local communities, said Paul, R-Richmond.

Bourff recently invited Paul and State Rep. Dick Hamm, R-Richmond, to Bourff’s office to discuss the impact of legislation passed by the General Assembly on Richmond schools, Paul said. School officials aren't asked about the reprecussions of legislative decisions, Paul said.

Richmond Community Schools Assistant Superintendent Mark Millis spoke in support of the bill during the Senate committee hearing.

“We are looking forward to this bill moving through the Legislature and for some healthy dialogue relating to how schools and communities connect,” Millis said in a statement.
...

http://www.pal-item.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014301270018

Times Reports Calumet Suit Claims Griffith Secession Law Unconstitutional

From the Northwest Indiana Times:

Lawyers for Calumet Township officials are challenging the constitutionality of a 2013 state law that could force them to cut millions of dollars in assistance to Gary's neediest residents.

Trustee Mary Elgin and Dwight Gardner, a Gary resident, have filed suit in U.S. District Court in Hammond contending the law, known as House Bill 1585, is improper special legislation to provide tax relief to the predominantly white town of Griffith at the expense of black Gary residents.

The law would reduce the millions of dollars paid annually to tens of thousands of township blacks to provide emergency shelter, rent, mortgage payments, transportation, utilities, health care, food and burial services to tens of thousands of residents requesting township assistance.

It also would permit Griffith, which provides much of Calumet Township assistance revenues, to hold a referendum to leave Calumet for another neighboring township and escape Calumet's high poor-relief tax rate -- more than 22 times the state average last year.

"HB 1585 fuels the flames and passions of prejudice to encourage and pit one community against another," the suit states.

It names Gov. Mike Pence and Micah G. Vincent, commissioner of the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance, which would enforce the law, as defendants.

No court date has been set to resolve the dispute. Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for the Indiana attorney general, said Monday his office routinely defends state legislation against such suits. A DLGF spokeswoman didn't return a call seeking comment.

The disputed legislation culminated in years of lobbying by Griffith town officials to divorce themselves from a township trustee who they complained leans too heavily on their community to fund overgenerous social services in Gary, where more than 1 in 3 residents live below the poverty line.

A Times investigation last year found Elgin's office spent nearly $88 million between 2004 and 2010. Mandated state tax cuts already have forced the township trustee's office to lay off 155 employees since 2003. Most Indiana township trustees have only a fraction of her staff and budget.

Griffith officials say their taxpayers have supplied more than $1.7 million annually to support Elgin's poor relief operation, though the town's residents get back less than $11,000 of that for their own needs.
...

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/gary/calumet-twp-suit-claims-griffith-secession-law-is-unconstitutional/article_012f8191-a35a-5fe1-a133-295e92895211.html

Tax Court Posts Oral Argument in Pinnacle Entertainment Matter

TUE, JAN 28, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue

Tax

Marion

http://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?court=tax

DLGF Publishes Guidance on Treasurer's Tax Statement

TO: County Treasurers, Software Providers, and Print Vendors



FROM: Jenny Banks, Director of Communications

RE: Treasurer’s Tax Statement (TS-1) for 2014

DATE: January 24, 2014

The Department of Local Government Finance ("Department") is required to prescribe the treasurer’s property tax comparison statement ("TS-1") (IC 6-1.1-22-8.1).

The 2014 TS-1 form released in early January required a technical correction in Table 1. A revised copy of the form is now available at: http://www.in.gov/dlgf/files/2014_TS-1.zip.

Please note that if a county or its vendor already began processing bills using the forms issued in early January, those forms are NOT invalid and the county is NOT required to start over. However, if a county or its vendor has not yet begun processing bills, this latest version of the forms must be used.

The Department looks forward to working with counties, software providers, and print vendors to ensure this process continues to work smoothly. For questions about the TS-1, please contact Jenny Banks at (317) 234-4376 or jbanks@dlgf.in.gov.
http://www.in.gov/dlgf/files/140124_-_Banks_Memo_-_Treasurers_Tax_Statement_TS-1_for_2014_CORRECTION.pdf

Revenue Finds Taxpayer Failed to Prove Out of State Activities Exceeded a De Minimis Level

Excerpts of Revenue's Determination follow:

Taxpayer is a corporation headquartered in Indiana. Taxpayer manufactures computer numerical control ("CNC") routers. The Indiana Department of Revenue conducted an audit of the tax years 2010 and 2011. Pursuant to the audit, the Department found that Taxpayer had income derived from sales of items shipped to various foreign countries and Alaska during the audit years at issue. Taxpayer lacked sufficient nexus in those jurisdictions in order to subject Taxpayer to taxes on the income earned from those sales to those jurisdictions. As a result, the Department's audit determined that the Indiana "throwback" rule applied to Taxpayer. This adjustment to the sales factor increased the reported net operating loss ("NOL") for 2010, but increased the income reported for 2011. The net effect was additional income tax due for 2011, but no actual additional tax was due because Taxpayer had available Indiana Research Expense Credit amounts from prior years.
...
 

Taxpayer protests the Department's decision to subject Taxpayer's income from sales to customers in Alaska and foreign countries to the "throwback" rule. The Department's audit concluded that Taxpayer's activities did not exceed the protection of P.L. 86-272 (codified as 15 U.S.C. § 381) and was not subject to tax in the foreign countries and Alaska. As a result, the Department's audit determined that the Indiana throwback rule applied to Taxpayer, denied Taxpayer's refund claim, and also imposed additional assessments for the Audit Years at issue.
 

Taxpayer asserted that it had nexus with Alaska and those foreign countries because its business activities in those jurisdictions went beyond the P.L. 86-272's protection. Thus, Taxpayer maintained that the Indiana throwback rule was not applicable.
...

 

As explained in the audit report, Taxpayer did not provide sufficient documentation to establish that its activities in the foreign countries and Alaska rose above a de minimis level. In fact, the audit concluded that Taxpayer performed no activities in the foreign countries that would establish a taxable nexus and subject them to tax in those countries. As a result of the protest process, Taxpayer submitted additional documentation to support its protest, which included copies of Taxpayer's "Sales Representative Agreement," its foreign warranty certificate, its terms and conditions of sales, and a few examples of price quotes made to its clients. Taxpayer maintains that it has independent sales representatives (in other words, dealers of the CNCs) in foreign countries and Alaska who, according to Taxpayer, "not only solicit product sales but . . . provide training to customers of the machines functions, supervise installation and initial set-up, [and ]handle warranty and service repairs." Taxpayer points to the "Duties of Representative" section of the "Sales Representative Agreement" that was submitted with Taxpayer's protest. It provides that:
 

For the duration of this agreement, [the independent sales] Representative shall:. . .e) attend to the installation and startup of Products at customers' facilities in the Territory, f) service warranty claims related to the Products installed in the Territory, g) facilitate generally the sale, installation, startup and servicing of Products in the Territory, h) maintain such facilities, staff and organization as may be required to facilitate the sale, and attend to the installation, startup and servicing of Products in the Territory . . . .
 

Taxpayer's argument is that the sales representatives are performing services on behalf of Taxpayer in the foreign countries and Alaska, and therefore these activities establish a taxable nexus and would subject Taxpayer to tax in the foreign countries and Alaska. Taxpayer thus asserts that its activities in those foreign jurisdictions exceeded P.L. 86-272's protection and the Indiana throwback rule was not applicable.
 

Taxpayer's documentation demonstrates that its independent sales representatives either were located in, or visited, several countries and Alaska, and that they were responsible for potentially performing activities that rose above the mere solicitation of sales. It follows that if the activities described in the Sales Representative Agreement were performed, the activities exceeded the P.L. 86-272's protection. However, the Department will need to see further documentation showing that those activities were performed. The Department will allow thirty days for Taxpayer to provide tax returns from the other jurisdictions, sample invoices relating to the performance of those activities that were performed, or any other source documentation that demonstrates that these activities occurred in these jurisdictions. If this information is received, the file will be returned to the audit division where they are requested to review the submitted documentation and make whatever adjustments it deems appropriate.

 

http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20131225-IR-045130547NRA.xml.html

IBJ Reports Mass Transit Bill Clears Senate Committee with Changes

From the Indianapolis Business Journal:

A mass-transit bill for metro Indianapolis cleared a key Senate committee Tuesday morning, but left open many questions about how such a system would be funded.

The bill allows Marion County and surrounding counties to hold referendums on whether to increase their local income taxes to support the $1.3 billion system. The bill also calls for counties to adopt corporate income or employment taxes and requires fares to cover 25 percent of the operating costs. It also was amended to include a ban on using light rail.

The corporate income tax provision is a new wrinkle in the overall financing plan, and IndyConnect Executive Director Ron Gifford admitted that it’s not clear how it would all come together.

“There are questions about the mechanism, about the policy, about the rate,” he said.

But supporters were relieved to have the proposal clear the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee, which last year sidelined the initiative for summer study. The committee voted 8-4 to send the bill to the full Senate. Several members, including Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, said they still had reservations, but were willing to keep the bill alive.

Sen. Pat Miller, R-Indianapolis, the author of Senate Bill 176, said it essentially allows local communities to bring transportation to their areas.

“It will probably be amended a number of times as it moves through the process,” she said.

The corporate-tax requirement drew opposition from Americans for Prosperity and the Indiana Manufacturers Association, but committee Chairman Brant Hershman, R-Lafayette, defended it as a matter of fairness. Businesses subject to the individual income tax would see a hike because of mass transit, and he said, “Larger corporations should participate as well.”

IndyConnect hopes to see a referendum about public transit on local ballots this November.

The Senate committee accepted an amendment, filed late Monday, that included a ban on the use of light rail and an unrelated provision for a city of Indianapolis public works project.

...

http://www.ibj.com/mass-transit-bill-clears-senate-committee-with-changes/PARAMS/article/45818

Herald-Bulletin Argues Madison County Should Have Tax Process Down

From the Anderson Herald-Bulletin:

Managing a government post can’t be easy. Officeholders face the red tape of other agencies, the unending deadlines and ensuring that every action is legal with those proverbial t’s and i’s all dotted and crossed.

But one of the toughest problems for taxpayers are the hurdles they encounter from government.

And delaying property tax notices is a huge headache for residents who must plan for their payments.

But Madison County is months behind in giving critical taxing data to the state of Indiana. It could postpone approval of budgets for 2014 and setting property tax rates.

Who’s to blame? Well, it seems to be a privilege of elected officeholders to be able to point fingers at the other officials down the hall.

The auditor’s office said it needed figures on tax increment financing districts, where businesses usually get breaks on taxes. That information just came in from a private accounting firm.

The assessor’s office said assessed values for the county didn’t come in until October. And those are to go to the state. In addition, one earlier report on assessed values had 700 errors.

It all is supposed to go to the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance that approves budgets. But since the data isn’t in Indianapolis, the Madison County Council can’t approve the funding requests that involve the general fund or the county option income tax fund.

Finally, the county treasurer’s office has to send tax bills before they are due on May 10.

...

http://www.heraldbulletin.com/editorials/x651197771/Editorial-County-should-have-tax-process-down

Board Finds Purchase Price Sufficient to Show Property Over-Valued

Excerpts of the Board's Determination follow:

 

The Trust relies primarily on the fact that it bought the subject property for $15,750 on April 4, 2006. A property’s sale price can be compelling evidence of its market value-in-use where the sale was an arm’s-length transaction between typically motivated parties and, as was the case here, the property was exposed to the market for a reasonable time. The Assessor, however, challenged the sale by pointing to Mr. Kollar’s testimony (1) that the Trust bought the property from the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) after Freddie Mac had acquired the property through foreclosure, and (2) that the market was not a “foreclosure market.” The Assessor apparently takes the position that when an entity acquires a property through foreclosure, the price for which the entity re-sells the property necessarily fails to qualify as an indicator of the property’s market value-in-use unless foreclosure-related sales constitute the typical market in the area. The Board disagrees. Instead, the key is what generally accepted appraisal practices require in the context of the particular sale. And the Assessor shed no light on that question.

d) The Assessor also claims that the sale was too far removed from the relevant valuation dates to be probative of the subject property’s true tax value for the years under appeal. Again, the Board disagrees. The sale occurred less than eight months before the January 1, 2007 valuation date that applies to 2008 assessments. While the sale is further removed from the January 1, 2008 valuation date that applies to 2009 assessments, the Assessor herself did not change the property’s assessment between the 2007 and 2009 assessment years. Although not compelling, that fact is sufficient to at least prima facie relate the sale price to the property’s value as of January 1, 2009. And the Assessor offered nothing to dispute that relationship.

 

http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/908_Land_Trust_71-026-08-1-5-04024.pdf

Truth Reports Legislators Debating Local Option Income Tax for Elkhart County

From the Elkhart Truth:

The first Third House meetings of the year that put Indiana lawmakers in front of their constituents covered a lot of ground — the same-sex marriage constitutional amendment, common core education issues, mental illness and guns — but one topic that emerged in both meetings was an initiative to approve a new local option income tax  for Elkhart County.

The Goshen Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Elkhart Chamber of Commerce sponsored meetings in their downtown headquarters Saturday, Jan. 25, that included appearances by Indiana Sen. Carlin Yoder, Rep. Wes Culver, Rep. Tim Neese and Rep. Timothy Wesco.

County officials, with the help of lobbyists, have been urging state legislators to approve a new local option income tax of up to 1 percent. The tax would be adjusted annually to help replace revenue the local government lost because of property tax caps .

Goshen mayor Allan Kauffman said the local option income tax would not be “a new authority to tax.”

“It’s an additional option for the 1 percent that the county already has the authority to pass,” he said. “It’s the only one that will help schools and libraries, and this is critical for a county like Elkhart County where all of the urban school corporations are facing busing issues, that are looking at referendums that are going to increase your property taxes if we don’t increase the income tax 1 percent.”
...

http://www.elkharttruth.com/article/20140125/NEWS01/701259974

Tax Court Posts Oral Argument in Miller Pipeline Matter

MON, JAN 27, 2014 at 10:00 AM

Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue

Tax

Marion

http://mycourts.in.gov/arguments/default.aspx?court=tax

Trib Star Reports State and Federal Tax Season Opens at End of Month

From the Terre Haute Tribune Star:

The Indiana Department of Revenue and the IRS will open the 2014 filing season and begin processing individual income tax returns Jan. 31.

The Department of Revenue will offer qualified taxpayers a free filing service, called Indiana freefile (INfreefile), to file federal and state taxes online. Last year, more than 118,000 taxpayers used INfreefile to file their Indiana taxes. However, nearly 1 million Hoosier taxpayers qualify.

Taxpayers should visit www.freefile.dor.in.gov to see if they qualify for INfreefile based on the vendors’ options. If qualified, taxpayers simply click the vendor of their choice and complete their tax returns online.

If not qualified for INfreefile, taxpayers can e-file federal and state tax returns using other vendors.

There are advantages to electronically filing:

• Faster refunds — E-filed returns are processed in 10 to 14 days, while a paper return can take up to 10 to 12 weeks.

• Increased security — Fewer people see the information.

• Get more or owe less — E-filing software may suggest credits and deductions you might not have known about.

• Better accuracy — Electronic returns have a 2 percent error rate, versus 20 percent for paper returns.

The department has extended its customer service office hours during the tax season to the following:

• January — Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

• February to April — Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
http://www.tribstar.com/business/x1427973253/State-federal-tax-season-opens-at-end-of-month

Kokomo Tribune Argues Merge Our Townships

From the Kokomo Tribune:

State Rep. Mike Karickhoff has authored five bills and co-authored five more for the 2014 legislative session.

“My focus continues to be on giving local communities the power and flexibility to handle issues that come up in local neighborhoods and throughout the county,” the Kokomo Republican told us last week.

House Bill 1194 is a good example. It authorizes an additional county tax rate aimed at offsetting local government revenue losses due to tax caps on property.

But it’s House Bill 1267, which Karickhoff co-authored, that really got our attention. On Jan. 1, 2019, in every county except Marion County, the bill says, all townships will merge into a single entity.

Finally, perhaps, our state legislators will take seriously the consolidation recommendations of the Commission on Local Government Reform. Some in Howard County did. Center Township Trustee Jean Lushin was among them, as were the boards of Clay, Howard and Liberty townships.

All voted to take to referendum a proposal to consolidate townships along school corporation boundaries.

The Ervin and Union township boards? Not so much. Despite their failure to respond to the consolidation plan, people in the Eastern and Northwestern school districts still voted on township mergers in 2012.

The plan failed.

A survey of 452 registered voters discovered 61 percent were in favor of some sort of township merger, Lushin told us in 2011. And 35 percent of those advocating consolidation supported reducing townships within school districts.

Though we believe Howard County easily could coordinate fire protection, maintain cemeteries and take care of poor relief, we recognize Hoosiers vote from their front porches.
...

http://www.kokomotribune.com/opinion/x651193968/Merge-our-townships

Revenue Finds Taxpayer Failed to Sufficiently Show Equipment Rented

Excerpts of Revenue's Determination follow:

Taxpayer is an Indiana business with operations in Indiana and other states. As the result of an audit, the Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") determined that Taxpayer had not paid sales tax on certain purchases of tangible personal property at the time of purchase during the tax years 2008, 2009, and 2010. The Department therefore issued proposed assessments for use tax and interest for those years. Taxpayer protested the Department's determination that sales or use tax was due on two of the items purchased during those years.
...
 

Taxpayer protests the imposition of use tax on its purchase of two items, a multi terrain loader and an excavator. The Department based its assessments on the grounds that Taxpayer had purchased the vehicles and had not paid sales tax at the time of purchase. Taxpayer states that it rented the two items to a related company ("Related") and that one of the two items never entered the state of Indiana. ...
...
 

In the instant case, Taxpayer purchased two vehicles upon which the Department imposed use tax, but which Taxpayer argues are not subject to use tax. The first vehicle is the excavator. Taxpayer states that the excavator was never brought into the state of Indiana, but rather was delivered to a state bordering Indiana ("Border State") from an equipment dealer in a third state. Taxpayer states that the excavator was delivered to Border State and that it was used exclusively in that state until it was sold, thereby never entering Indiana. Thus, Taxpayer argues, since the excavator was never in Indiana, no Indiana use tax is due.
 

In support of its protest, Taxpayer provided a delivery receipt which shows that the excavator was delivered to Border State from the equipment dealer in the third state. The listed consignee is a supply company in Border State, not Taxpayer. This document does not state where Taxpayer took possession of the excavator. Also, Taxpayer provided documentation from Related, which showed the days on which Related used the excavator. That documentation lists predominant use of the excavator in Border State, but it also lists five days of use in Indiana. These five days of use in Indiana in and of themselves constitute storage, use, or consumption of tangible personal property in Indiana of property which was acquired in a retail transaction. Such activity constitutes use in Indiana and is subject to sales or use tax, as provided by IC § 6-2.5-3-2(a). Therefore, Taxpayer's argument that the excavator was used exclusively outside of Indiana is unpersuasive and Taxpayer has not met the burden of proving the proposed assessments wrong, as required by IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c).
 

The second vehicle in question is a multi terrain loader. Taxpayer states that both the loader and the excavator were rented to Related and provided documentation from Related showing the days on which Related used the loader as well as the excavator. Taxpayer acknowledges that it did not collect sales tax from Related for the rental of the two vehicles, but states that it has now adjusted its business operations to reflect the rental arrangement with Related. Taxpayer has provided a copy of a monthly sales tax report it made to the Department in March of 2010. The Department notes that, while the monthly report does report sales tax due from Taxpayer as a retail merchant, the report itself does not establish that the sales tax resulted from the rental of the two vehicles in question.
 

Taxpayer argues that it was renting the two vehicles even if it did not collect sales tax on those rentals. The Department notes that Taxpayer has not established that there was a rental agreement for either the loader or the excavator. Neither has Taxpayer established that there were actual rental payments from Related to Taxpayer for either the loader or the excavator. The only documentation supplied regarding the use of the vehicles is from Related, not from Taxpayer. That documentation lists Related's use of the vehicles. Related's documentation does not list rental payments to Taxpayer. Without documentation of such a stream of rental payments, the Department cannot agree that Taxpayer was renting the two vehicles.
 

Taxpayer has expressed concern that the Department has not reviewed the documentation which it has submitted in support of its protest. The Department takes this opportunity to affirm that it has now twice thoroughly reviewed all of the documentation submitted by Taxpayer in this matter. Simply put, Taxpayer has not met the burden of proving the proposed assessments wrong, as required by IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c). Taxpayer's documentation does not establish that its protest points are correct. The Department's initial imposition of use tax and the denial of Taxpayer's protest in the initial Letter of Findings were correct.

 

http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20131225-IR-045130548NRA.xml.html

News Reports Referendum Could Determine Future of Concord Community Schools

From the Goshen News:

Most school corporations pursue special referendums in order to thrive. Concord Community Schools is doing it to survive.

Such was the idea behind a Jan. 13 vote by the Concord Board of School Trustees to approve putting what they called a general fund operating referendum on the ballot for the upcoming primary election in May.

According to Wayne Stubbs, superintendent of Concord Community Schools, the corporation over the past five years has faced a combined loss of $10 million to funds supported by local property taxes, with another $4.2 million in additional losses expected this year alone.

The reason: fallout from the 2008 constitutionally-instituted Indiana property tax caps which capped property taxes at 1 percent for residential properties, 2 percent for rental and agricultural properties and 3 percent for commercial properties.

“This is much different than what happened with the Goshen Community Schools referendum, where they were actually doing a building project,” Stubbs said from his office Monday afternoon. “We’re not looking to build or add on to any of our facilities. This is simply to try and get back or recover some of the massive losses that we incurred due to the tax caps.”

As reported by the Legislative Services Agency, Concord currently ranks 8th out of 292 school districts in Indiana for experiencing the highest property tax losses — losses due primarily to Concord’s unique location, which overlaps other taxing units such as the cities of Goshen and Elkhart.

According to Stubbs, the tax caps are applied to the overall tax rate, which includes cities, counties, townships, libraries and schools.

“Concord Community Schools includes all of those taxing units, with the added distinction of having both portions of the city of Elkhart and the city of Goshen as part of our tax base,” Stubbs said. "Concord’s assessed valuation also has a large percentage of homes which hit the property tax cap at 1 percent, which reduces the amount of funding we receive. Concord also has very little farm land or industrial property, so we lose out there too.”

In addition, the school corporation is also facing a significant financial shortfall resulting from the tax caps being implemented shortly after the corporation chose to pursue some hefty building construction and renovation projects, such as the construction of a new junior high building and the conversion of the old junior high into a new intermediate school.

“We lost $3.9 million in 2013, and we project a $4.2 million loss in 2014,” Stubbs said of the resulting financial fallout. “That’s in local property tax funds — bus replacement, transportation, and capital projects — and that’s where we’re just getting brutally hammered. The way the current law works, starting in 2014, the losses will only be felt in those three funds. So for Concord, that means we lose 68.2 percent of those funds, which makes us one of the hardest hit school corporations in the state.”

In an effort to try and shore up some of those hefty funding losses, school corporation officials this May will be asking voters in the Concord area to approve an additional tax levy of up to $0.405 for every $100 of assessed property value.

“So for a person who has a $100,000 home, after their deductions, mortgage exemptions, etc., that comes out to about an $11 a month increase they’d be seeing, or about the cost of a pizza each month,” Stubbs said. “And again, this is not to build anymore buildings, add on to any buildings... this is basically operational costs needed to be able to maintain our existing buildings moving forward.”

Should the referendum prove successful, Stubbs said the additional tax levy will bring in just under $4 million in additional funding for the school corporation each year, or about $28 million over the course of the levy’s seven year lifespan.
...

http://www.goshennews.com/local/x651192665/Referendum-could-determine-what-sort-of-future-Concord-Community-Schools-has

Courier-Journal: Lanesville Schools Seek Referendum

From the Louisville Courier-Journal:

Lanesville Community Schools will become the first in the area to ask its voters to approve a property tax increase to support its general fund.

Its school board unanimously approved a resolution Tuesday to pursue a tax levy referendum on the May 6 primary election ballot that, if voters back it, would allow up to a 17-cent increase on Franklin Township property tax bills.

School administrators say the 662-student system, one of the state’s smallest, has benefitted from an influx of 180 transfer students and the per-pupil state funding that follows them to Harrison County. But it’s not a stable source of revenue when the district is dealing with a $240,000 shortfall this year — and more shortfalls ahead.

“We’re trying to be very pro-active,” Superintendent Steve Morris said. “We’ve got a good school system. We want to try to maintain it.”

Indiana law allows school corporations to place a public question on a ballot if the school board determines the district cannot carry out its public educational duty unless it imposes a referendum tax levy.

Lanesville is now in the process of sending its resolution and the proposed ballot question to the state’s Department of Local Government Finance for review. According to the DLGF’s website, Hoosiers have rejected 15 referenda and passed 13 since 2010. In the last two years, the track record has been more favorable with seven approved compared with three rejected by voters.

In Lanesville, the system’s general fund expenses are $4,084,252, while estimates revenues are about $3,844,820. While they can absorb the shortfall this year, Morris said, they can’t keep running behind. Money in a rainy day fund has gradually dwindled because of increases in health insurance premiums.

Administrators project that the 17-cent increase valuation would generate about $260,000 a year. The additional levy would take effect in 2015 and continue for seven years. Tax bills for a property owner whose home and acreage is assessed at $100,000 would increase about $50, Morris said.

Depending on each year’s budget and cash flow, Lanesville may use only 10 cents of the 17-cent levy available. And because the district expects to retire school construction bonds in five years, they could reduce taxes by 21 cents per $100 of valuation, school board president Donnie Hussung said.
...

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2014301250027&nclick_check=1

Daily Journal: Proposal Targets TIF Fund Oversight

From the Johnson County Daily Journal:

Redevelopment commissions throughout the state control millions in tax dollars, and state lawmakers want more people to have a say in how that money is being spent.

Members of redevelopment commissions are appointed, not elected, and oversee the spending of tax dollars without needing approval from mayors, county commissioners, or county, city or town councils. Once again, state lawmakers are trying to tweak state law so elected officials, and the voters who put them in office, have more of a say in how that tax money is being spent.

The proposal by Sen. Pete Miller, R-Avon, would require redevelopment commissions to submit quarterly reports to the city council, give information to the council before buying, selling or transferring property, get council approval before borrowing money and reinforce requirements to follow open meeting rules and answer public records requests. The proposed changes aren’t new. Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, has made similar proposals in recent years that weren’t approved.

http://www.dailyjournal.net/view/local_story/Proposal-targets-TIF-fund-over_1390619287/

Hayden: Lawmakers Push for Temporary Remedy for School Transportation Woes

By Maureen Hayden in the Clark County News and Tribune:

A temporary fix is in the making for school districts losing millions in transportation funds, but only the hardest hit may see relief.

On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously passed a bill to essentially stall for three years a new law that requires schools to pay off their debts before spending money on school buses and big-ticket projects.

The Senate bill would apply to fewer than 60 school districts — those set to lose at least 20 percent of their funds for transportation and capital project due to the new “protected levy” law.

Schools losing less than that would be left to absorb the cuts or dip into their operating funds, which pay for teacher and administrator salaries.

Supporters of the bill said it’s primarily aimed at helping districts in counties still recovering from the recession, which brought deep declines in property values and tax revenues needed to keep schools running.

“It’s a Band-Aid,” said state Sen. Ryan Mischler, R-Bremen. “But it’s a Band-Aid they should be able to grow out of on their own.”

Some of his fellow committee members disagreed, questioning how quickly the economy is rebounding.

“This is like putting a Band-Aid on a bleeding artery,” said state Sen. Tim Skinner, D-Terre Haute. “We’re going to have more people coming in on their hands and knees begging for us for money so they can provide transportation for schoolchildren.”

A similar bill that would benefit more schools is making its way through House. But the Senate version is expected to prevail. Senate Appropriations Chairman Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, has made it clear that he wants the final version to be narrowly focused.

The protected levy law was passed in 2012 but its implementation delayed until this July. It takes money out of districts’ transportation, bus replacement and capital funds, diverting those dollars into debt service.
...

http://www.newsandtribune.com/clarkcounty/x1767998135/Lawmakers-push-for-temporary-remedy-for-school-transportation-woes

Herald-Bulletin Reports Audit Finds Anderson Township Paid Tax Penalties

From the Anderson Herald-Bulletin:

The Anderson Township Trustee’s Office paid almost $1,000 in penalties and interest for not paying state and federal taxes on schedule, a state audit reported.

The Indiana State Board of Accounts released its audit of the Anderson Township Trustee’s Office for the period from Jan. 1, 2011 to Dec. 31, 2012.

The audit report states that a “notice of levy” was issued by the Internal Revenue Service on July 30, 2012, which placed a hold on the township’s bank account.

“The IRS required payment for the taxes, penalty, and interest due from Dec. 31, 2011 in the amount of $4,125, which was the calculated amount due on Aug. 22, 2012,” the report reads.

The report said the township paid $2,736 on Aug. 3, 2012, to satisfy the “notice of levy."

State regulations require officials and employees to pay claims and remit taxes in a timely fashion. Any penalties, interest or other charges paid by the government unit may be the personal obligation of the responsible official or employee.

The Indiana State Board of Accounts didn’t request reimbursement from Trustee Brenda Jones or her employees.

Jones could not be reached for comment.
...

http://www.heraldbulletin.com/local/x651193056/Audit-notes-Anderson-Township-paid-tax-penalties

Daily Reporter: Mt. Vernon Referendum Third Time Around

From the Greenfield Daily Reporter:

If the Mt. Vernon School Board votes to move forward with the district’s referendum on Monday, it will be the third try in less than four years.

The two prior referendums, in 2010 and 2012, failed by double-digit margins. But with a grassroots campaign spearheaded by MV parents who want to see the referendum pass, school officials and supporters see this time around as their best chance to court voters.

“We do not favor any more cost-cutting. We are addressing the revenue side,” said Larry Longman, who along with Jeff Mull is spearheading the pro-referendum efforts with a group called GraduateMVCSC. “The costs have been cut as deep as they can. Now we have to get additional revenue to offset the deficit.”

GraduateMVCSC’s ultimate goal is to see Mt. Vernon eliminate its debt. Longman and Mull were spurred into action after the state’s recently established Distressed Unit Appeals Board, which was designed to specifically address state loans to ailing school districts, denied Mt. Vernon’s request for a $2.5 million loan.

School officials believe having GraduateMVCSC in their corner could make the third time the charm for MV referendums. Couple that with the fact that the impacts of the cost-cutting measures implemented at MV are more visible, and it might be enough to turn around voter sentiment.

“We’re not talking about building stuff. We’re talking about classroom performance. We’re talking about teachers,” school board President Tony May said. “I think they are starting to come around.”

According to May, some people who spoke negatively of the referendums in the past and voted against them are changing their minds now that the deep cuts the district has made have come to light, including shuttering the former Fortville Elementary School; reducing the teaching staff; implementing a pay-to-play program for all clubs and athletics; and moving eighth-grade students to the high school building.

“The message is getting out. We’re really talking about performance in the classroom,” May said.

http://www.greenfieldreporter.com/view/local_story/Mt-Vernon-referendum-Third-tim_1390629782