If a taxpayer disagrees with the assessed value of her property as described on the Form 11, she may appeal the assessment within 45 days of the mailing of the notice. I.C. § 6-1.1-15-1(c). The Petitioner initiated her appeal with a letter to the County Assessor dated October 31, 2011. Significantly, the record contains no evidence related to the date her letter actually was mailed. And the Respondent testified that letter was received in the mail on November 3, 2011—a point the Petitioner did nothing to dispute.
According to the Respondent and the PTABOA, the 45 days to initiate the appeal process ended on October 28, 2011. Their calculation of the date, however, is wrong. See 52 IAC 2-3-1(b). Forty-five days from the Form 11 mailing date was October 29, 2011, which was a Saturday. Therefore, a filing on Monday, October 31, 2011, would have been timely. If the record contained substantial evidence that the appeal letter actually was mailed on October 31, the Board could determine the appeal process was started in a timely manner. For example, the postmark date on United States first class mail is prima facie proof of the date of the filing of an appeal petition. See 52 IAC 2-3-1(c). In this appeal, however, that envelope was not entered into the record, so it is impossible for the Board to examine the postmark to determine the actual date of mailing. Furthermore, the record contains no testimony or other evidence about when this appeal letter was mailed.
On the other hand, the Respondent provided undisputed testimony that the letter was received in the mail on November 3, 2011, but by then the time to initiate this appeal really had run out.
Unfortunately, even though the significance of the filing date should have been clear, the entirety of the record fails to prove what that specific date actually is. Based on the date of the letter and the date of receipt, the Board can only conclude that the letter could have been mailed on October 31, November 1, or November 2.
The Form 115 from the PTABOA plainly states the reason for denial: “No change due to not filing in a timely manner.” In spite of that statement, the Petitioner provided no evidence or argument to establish an exact filing date. She made no attempt to establish to the Board that the PTABOA determination was wrong or that her letter actually was timely. To the contrary, according to the Petitioner’s testimony, “I also called the office when I realized that my request was going to be late and I was advised to go ahead and file it.” Perhaps the Petitioner should not have accepted the PTABOA’s position on timeliness because the last day for timely filing clearly was not October 28. But at this point the ambiguous record does not establish that the appeal letter was a timely filing to start the appeal process.
“While a taxpayer has the right to challenge [her] property’s value, [she] must also bear the responsibilities that are attached to the right. Indeed, because the legislature has created specific appeal procedures by which to challenge assessments, a taxpayer must comply with the statutory requirements of filing the proper petitions within a timely manner.” Williams Industries v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 648 N.E.2d 713, 718 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995) (citing Reams v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 620 N.E.2d 758, 760-61 (Ind. Tax 1993)).
The Petitioner failed to show that she complied with the statutory requirements to initiate the appeal process within the time allowed by statute. Her failure on that initial procedural requirement precludes any determination about her claim for a more accurate valuation for the subject property. Id.
