Muir Woods Section One Assn., Inc. v. Marion County Assessor ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONERS:                      ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
    JAMES K. GILDAY                                JOHN P. LOWREY
    GILDAY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.                      JESSICA R. GASTINEAU
    Indianapolis, IN                               OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
    Indianapolis, IN
    IN THE
    INDIANA TAX COURT
    MUIR WOODS SECTION ONE ASSN., INC.,              )
    MUIR WOODS, INC., SPRUCE KNOLL                   )                          FILED
    HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., INC., and                     )                    Dec 22 2023, 11:07 am
    OAKMONT HOMEOWNERS ASSOC., INC.,                 )                          CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    )                        Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    Petitioners,                              )
    )
    v.                                 ) Cause No. 22T-TA-00001
    )
    MARION COUNTY ASSESSOR,                          )
    )
    Respondent.                               )
    ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
    FOR PUBLICATION
    December 22, 2023
    ROBB, Senior J.
    Muir Woods Section One Assn., Inc., Muir Woods, Inc., Spruce Knoll
    Homeowners Assoc., Inc., and Oakmont Homeowners Assoc., Inc. (the HOAs) initiated
    an appeal with this Court alleging that the Indiana Board of Tax Review erroneously
    dismissed their case at the administrative level. Upon review, the Court finds that it
    lacks subject matter jurisdiction to decide the HOAs’ appeal.
    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
    The HOAs are all homeowners’ associations that own property in Marion County,
    Indiana. In 2014, the HOAs filed 141 “Petition[s] for Correction of an Error” (Forms 133)
    appealing the assessment of their common areas for the 2001, 2002, and 2003
    assessment years. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 6-7 ¶¶ 2-3.) The HOAs believed their
    common areas should have been assessed as having little to no value. (See, e.g., Cert.
    Admin. R. at 16-23.) After the Marion County Property Tax Assessment Board of
    Appeals denied all 141 Forms 133 in a single order, the HOAs appealed to the Indiana
    Board. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 5-34.)
    In 2018, three years after appealing to the Indiana Board, the Marion County
    Assessor moved to dismiss the appeal on the basis that the HOAs utilized the wrong
    form to litigate their claims. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 526-27 ¶ 1, 529 ¶¶ 8-10,
    540.) In a final determination dated June 13, 2019, the Indiana Board held that the
    HOAs had indeed raised the type of claims that could not be corrected using a Form
    133 and dismissed the appeals. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 526, 537 ¶ 29.)
    The HOAs subsequently initiated an original tax appeal, claiming that the Indiana
    Board’s final determination was erroneous for three reasons. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin.
    R. at 541, 543.) In an opinion issued on August 31, 2020, this Court affirmed in part
    and reversed in part the Indiana Board’s final determination. (See Cert. Admin. R. at
    538-47.) More specifically, the Court rejected two of the HOAs’ three stated claims of
    error – that their common areas were exempt from taxation and that the assessed
    values of their common areas did not include the proper discount prescribed in the
    applicable land order – and affirmed the Indiana Board’s dismissal as to those two
    2
    issues. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 547.) The Court, however, remanded the HOAs’ third
    claim of error – whether their common areas had been taxed more than once – for the
    Indiana Board to consider. (See Cert. Admin. R. 547.) The Court noted that because
    the HOAs had not had the opportunity to present evidence to the Indiana Board
    regarding that claim, they were entitled to do so on remand. (See Cert. Admin. R. at
    547 (indicating to the Indiana Board that “a review of the property record cards and tax
    bills of the individual homeowners within each HOA community may reveal that [the]
    objective error [of multiple taxation] was made”).)
    The HOAs appealed the Tax Court’s decision to the Indiana Supreme Court.
    (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 548.) On August 26, 2021, the Supreme Court affirmed
    the portion of the Tax Court’s decision that 1) rejected the HOAs’ claim that their
    common areas were exempt from taxation and 2) remanded to the Indiana Board the
    issue of whether the common areas had been taxed more than once. (See Cert.
    Admin. R. at 548-53.) The Supreme Court, however, reversed the portion of the Tax
    Court’s decision with respect to the HOAs’ claim that the assessed values of their
    common areas did not include the proper discount prescribed in the applicable land
    order and remanded that issue (along with the issue the Tax Court previously
    remanded) to the Indiana Board “for further proceedings.” (See Cert. Admin. R. at 548-
    553.)
    On October 4, 2021, the HOAs requested that the Indiana Board schedule a
    status conference. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 554-57.) Instead, the Indiana Board
    scheduled a hearing for December 8, 2021, to review and decide the two issues that
    had been remanded to it. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 558-60.) In scheduling that hearing,
    3
    the Indiana Board stated that “[e]vidence will be limited to the two issues [remanded to
    it], namely, whether the common areas were assessed at ‘20% of the base rate,’ and
    whether ‘a review of the property record cards and tax bills’ indicate the tax was paid
    more than once.” (Cert. Admin. R. at 560.)
    On October 28, 2021, the parties filed a joint motion to continue the Indiana
    Board hearing and for leave to submit an agreed case management plan in which they
    would “stipulate the earliest time in which they [would] be prepared” for a remand
    hearing. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 561-64.) On November 10, 2021, however, the
    Indiana Board issued a notice to the parties that it would merely reschedule the remand
    hearing for December 15, 2021. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 565-66.)
    On November 12, 2021, the HOAs filed with the Indiana Board an unopposed
    motion to establish a case management plan in which it sought to push the remand
    hearing out to late September or October of 2022 so that it would have time to conduct
    discovery and file dispositive motions if necessary. 1 (See Cert. Admin. R. at 567-70;
    Cert. Admin. R. Addendum at 2319-21.) One week later, on November 19, 2021, the
    HOAs served the Assessor with a Trial Rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition – along with a
    request for production of certain documents – scheduled for December 2, 2021. (See
    Cert. Admin. R. at 582 ¶ 9, 601-09, 620-21.) That same day, however, the Assessor’s
    counsel advised the HOAs that December 2nd would probably not work because she
    had a medical appointment. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2106.) Despite a subsequent
    series of rather contentious emails between the parties, the HOAs ultimately conducted
    1
    The HOAs represent that at the time they filed this motion on November 12, they had not yet
    received the Indiana Board’s order rescheduling the remand hearing for December 15. (See
    Pet’rs’ Br. Supp. Pet. Jud. Rev. (“Pet’rs’ Br.”) at 7 ¶ 8 (indicating that the HOAs received the
    Indiana Board’s notice in the mail on November 15).)
    4
    the deposition on December 2 but, as should have been anticipated, the Assessor and
    his counsel did not appear. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. 2101-06, 2116-28, 2155-70.)
    On December 14, 2021, the HOAs filed with the Indiana Board both a motion for
    partial summary judgment (complete with a brief and designation of evidence) as well
    as a motion to reschedule the remand hearing that was set for the next day, December
    15. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 580-86, 628-2057.) The Assessor responded with a motion
    to strike the HOAs’ motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that the HOAs failed
    to timely provide him with their designated evidence/exhibits that supported their motion
    for partial summary judgment. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2058-62.) See also 52 IND.
    ADMIN. CODE 4-8-1 (2021) (indicating that the parties are to exchange copies of
    documentary evidence at least five business days before the scheduled Indiana Board
    hearing).
    On December 21, 2021, the HOAs filed a motion with the Indiana Board seeking
    sanctions against the Assessor for his failure to appear at the December 2 deposition
    and produce the requested documents. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2064-78.) The next
    day, December 22, 2021, the Indiana Board issued an order dismissing the HOAs’
    appeal on the basis that the HOAs failed to appear at the scheduled December 15
    5
    remand hearing.2 (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2184.) Nonetheless, the Indiana Board
    indicated in its order that
    Within ten (10) days after the issuance of this Notice, [the HOAs]
    may file a written objection requesting that this Notice be vacated
    and set aside. This objection must contain supportive facts stating
    why they did not appear at the hearing and showing just cause why
    this appeal should not be dismissed. Upon receipt of [the] written
    objection, the Indiana Board of Tax Review may schedule another
    hearing on this appeal.
    (Cert. Admin. R. at 2184.) See also 52 IND. ADMIN. CODE 4-9-4 (2021) (providing that 1)
    if a party fails to appear at an Indiana Board hearing, the Indiana Board shall dismiss
    the appeal; 2) the party then has 10 days to request that the dismissal be set aside; and
    3) the Indiana Board may set aside its dismissal for failure to appear if the party
    demonstrates good cause).
    On January 3, 2022, the HOAs filed a motion with the Indiana Board seeking to
    have the dismissal of their case vacated. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2185-2225.) On
    January 10, 2022, the Indiana Board took the HOAs’ motion to vacate “under
    advisement” and rescheduled the remand hearing for February 11, 2022, stating that it
    would hear “all pending matters” at that time. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2242-44.) Three
    days later, however, on January 13, 2022, the Indiana Board resolved one of those
    pending matters, issuing an order that denied the HOAs’ partial motion for summary
    2
    As its authority for dismissing the HOAs’ appeal, the Indiana Board’s order cited 52 Indiana
    Administrative Code 2-10-1. (Cert. Admin. R. at 2184.) That regulation, however, which
    allowed the Indiana Board to dismiss an appeal petition for a party’s failure to appear, had been
    repealed in 2020 and replaced by 52 Indiana Administrative Code 4-9-4. Compare 52 IND.
    ADMIN. CODE 2-10-1 (repealed 2020) with 52 IND. ADMIN. CODE 4-9-4 (eff. May 15, 2020). Given
    that the two regulations are substantially similar, the Indiana Board’s citation error is harmless.
    (See also Pet’rs’ Reply Br. Supp. Pet. Jud. Rev. (“Pet’rs’ Reply Br.”) at 10 (acknowledging that
    the Indiana Board’s citation error was “inconsequential” because the two regulations are
    essentially the same).)
    6
    judgment on the basis that it was untimely under the Indiana Board’s administrative
    regulations.3 (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2245-46.)
    On January 18, 2022, the HOAs sought a rehearing with the Indiana Board on its
    partial motion for summary judgment denial. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 2277-84.) When,
    by February 7, 2022, the Indiana Board had not yet ruled on that rehearing request, the
    HOAs initiated an appeal with the Tax Court. (See Pet’rs’ Pet. Jud. Rev. Fin.
    Determination Dismissing Pet’rs’ Form 133 Pet. & Denying Mot. Partial Summ. J.
    (“Pet’rs’ Pet.”) at 10 ¶¶ 51-52.)
    The parties subsequently filed their written briefs in accordance with Tax Court
    Rule 3(G). In his brief, the Assessor asserted that the Court must dismiss the HOAs’
    appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.4 (See Resp’t Br. at 6, 8-10.) The Court
    conducted oral argument on October 19, 2022. Additional facts will be supplied when
    necessary.
    LAW
    Subject matter jurisdiction, the power of a court to hear and determine a
    particular class of cases, can only be conferred upon a court by the Indiana Constitution
    3
    In its order, the Indiana Board cited to 52 Indiana Administrative Code 4-7-3(b); that regulation
    states “[a party’s] motion for summary judgment filed less than thirty (30) days before a hearing
    may be denied as untimely.” (Cert. Admin. R. at 2245-46); 52 IND. ADMIN. CODE 4-7-3(b)
    (2022).
    4
    “A claim of lack of subject matter jurisdiction should be advanced through a motion to dismiss
    . . . under Trial Rule 12(B)(1).” Albright v. Pyle, 
    637 N.E.2d 1360
    , 1363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).
    While the Assessor did not file such a motion, that failure is not determinative here: the
    lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time and, even when not raised properly
    by a party, the tribunal must consider the issue sua sponte. See 
    id.
     See also, e.g., Perry v.
    Stitzer Buick GMC, Inc., 
    637 N.E.2d 1282
    , 1287 (Ind. 1994) (explaining that while the defendant
    filed a motion for summary judgment in which it asserted that the plaintiff’s complaint was barred
    by the exclusivity provision of the Indiana Workers Compensation Act, the trial court should
    have treated that motion as a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
    7
    or by statute. See In re Adoption of O.R., 
    16 N.E.3d 965
    , 970-71 (Ind. 2014); K.S. v.
    State, 
    849 N.E.2d 538
    , 540 (Ind. 2006); State v. Sproles, 
    672 N.E.2d 1353
    , 1356 (Ind.
    1996). When a court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any judgment it enters
    is void. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. Ispat Inland, Inc., 
    784 N.E.2d 477
    , 481 (Ind. 2003).
    ANALYSIS
    In their appeal to the Tax Court, the HOAs argue that the Indiana Board’s
    decision to dismiss their case should be reversed because it “was contrary to [the]
    Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure[] and in violation of most if not all of Indiana Code §
    33-26-6-6(e)[.]” (Pet’rs’ Br. Supp. Pet. Jud. Rev. (“Pet’rs’ Br.”) at 3.) More specifically,
    the HOAs assert that, “logically,” the Indiana Board should have continued the
    December 15 remand hearing and rescheduled it for a later date, instead of dismissing
    the appeal, given the following “facts”:
    1) the HOAs adequately explained to the Indiana Board very early
    on that they needed to conduct discovery and therefore needed a
    reasonable amount of time to do so before an evidentiary hearing
    should have ever been scheduled;
    2) the HOAs’ partial motion for summary judgment, which was filed
    before the December 15, 2021, hearing should have been
    decided before any evidentiary remand hearing could be
    conducted; and
    3) prior to the December 15 remand hearing, the HOAs raised
    several concerns regarding “exigent health circumstances” and
    the possible, yet “uncertain,” exposure of individuals from both
    8
    parties’ litigation teams to COVID-19.5
    (See Pet’rs’ Br. 21-30 (claiming that in failing to acknowledge these facts, the Indiana
    Board violated the Trial Rules contemplating the need for case management
    conferences and plans as well as a party’s “right” to file summary judgment motions).)
    (See also Cert. Admin. R. at 580-85 (outlining the possible COVID-19 exposures).) The
    HOAs also allege that the Indiana Board erred in determining that their partial motion for
    summary judgment was untimely. (See Pet’rs’ Br. at 32-38 (asserting in part that
    because Indiana Trial Rule 56 allows a party to file a motion for summary judgment at
    any time, the Indiana Board’s regulation requiring such a motion not less than 30 days
    prior to a scheduled administrative hearing is in direct conflict and therefore
    inapplicable).)
    In response, the Assessor argues that the Tax Court must dismiss the HOAs’
    appeal because the HOAs have not yet received a final determination from the Indiana
    Board. (See Resp’t Br. at 1.) Consequently, the Assessor argues, the Court lacks
    5
    As the HOAs have explained:
    Exigent health circumstances justified [the HOAs’] non-appearance [at the
    December 15 remand hearing]. The undeniable fact is that the Delta and
    Omicron Coronavirus Variants surges were infecting, even the vaccinated,
    in increasingly large numbers. . . . Therefore, the utmost prudence, whether
    articulated with accurate foresight in [their] Motion for Continuance, or in
    hindsight, was employed by [the HOAs] and their counsel in not being
    physically present . . . on December 15, 2021.
    (Pet’rs’ Br. at 29 (citation omitted).)
    9
    subject matter jurisdiction to decide the HOAs’ case and should remand the matter to
    the Indiana Board to complete its administrative review.6 (See Resp’t Br. at 8-10, 15.)
    Does the Tax Court have Subject Matter Jurisdiction?
    The Assessor’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction presents
    the threshold question concerning the Court’s power to act. This Court has subject
    matter jurisdiction over all “original tax appeals” and its territorial jurisdiction spans the
    entire state. IND. CODE §§ 33-26-3-1, -3 (2023); Ind. Tax Court Rule 13.
    A case is an original tax appeal if it “arises under the tax laws of Indiana” and it
    “is an initial appeal of a final determination” made by the Indiana Board.7 I.C. § 33-26-3-
    1. With respect to the first requirement, a case arises under Indiana’s tax laws “if (1) ‘an
    Indiana tax statute creates the right of action,’ or (2) ‘the case principally involves
    collection of a tax or defenses to that collection.’” State ex rel. Zoeller v. Aisin USA
    Mfg., Inc., 
    946 N.E.2d 1148
    , 1152 (Ind. 2011) (citation omitted).
    The second requirement embodies the principle basic to all administrative law
    that a party seeking judicial relief from an agency action must first establish that all
    administrative remedies have been exhausted. See Ispat Inland, 784 N.E.2d at 482.
    Thus, the lack of a final determination from the Indiana Board, which is the equivalent to
    the failure to exhaust administrative remedies, will act to deprive the Tax Court of
    6
    Alternatively, the Assessor maintains that the Indiana Board’s dismissal of the HOAs’ case
    should be affirmed because the HOAs did not demonstrate any “extraordinary circumstances”
    that justified their failure to appear at the December 15 remand hearing. (See Resp’t Br. at 6-7,
    10-14.) Given the Court’s resolution of the Assessor’s subject matter jurisdiction claim, the
    Court need not address this issue.
    7
    While not relevant here, a case may also be an initial appeal of a final determination made by
    either the Department of State Revenue or the Department of Local Government Finance. See
    IND. CODE § 33-26-3-1 (2023); IND. CODE § 33-26-6-0.2 (2023).
    10
    subject matter jurisdiction in a case. See State ex rel. Att’y Gen. v. Lake Super Ct., 
    820 N.E.2d 1240
    , 1247 (Ind. 2005), cert. denied; Ispat Inland, 784 N.E.2d at 482. “A final
    determination is an order that determines the rights of, or imposes obligations on, the
    parties as a consummation of the administrative process.” Whetzel v. Dep’t of Loc.
    Gov’t Fin., 
    761 N.E.2d 904
    , 906 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2002) (emphasis added and quotations
    omitted).
    Here, the Assessor asserts that the Indiana Board’s December 22, 2021, order
    dismissing the HOAs’ appeal was an appealable final determination. (See Resp’t Br. at
    9.) But when the HOAs moved to vacate that dismissal on January 3, 2022, and the
    Indiana Board subsequently took that motion under advisement and scheduled another
    remand hearing for February 11, 2022, the December 22, 2021, order “ceased to be a
    final determination[ as] it was no longer a ‘culmination of the administrative process,’
    determined no rights, and imposed no obligations.” (Resp’t Br. at 9-10 (citation
    omitted).) The Court finds the Assessor’s argument persuasive.
    Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5 provides that once the Indiana Board issues a final
    determination in a case, a party to the proceeding has 15 days to request a rehearing.
    IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-5(a) (2021). That statute further provides that if the Indiana Board
    grants the rehearing request, it “(1) may conduct the additional hearings that [it]
    determines necessary or [it may] review the written record without additional hearings;
    and (2) shall issue a final determination not later than ninety (90) days after notifying the
    parties that [it] will rehear the final determination.” I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(a) (emphasis
    added). A party’s request for rehearing does not toll the time by which it must file a
    petition for judicial review unless the rehearing request is granted. I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(a).
    11
    The language contained in Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(a) is unambiguous: it
    indicates the Legislature’s intent that once the Indiana Board grants a request for
    rehearing, its original final determination ceases to carry any weight as the Indiana
    Board must issue a “new” final determination in the matter that either “affirm[s] or
    modif[ies]” the original final determination. See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(a). Accordingly, when
    the HOAs moved to vacate the Indiana Board’s December 22, 2021, dismissal and the
    Indiana Board took that motion under advisement and scheduled another remand
    hearing for February 11, 2022, the original December 22, 2021, order ceased to be an
    appealable final determination because the administrative review process had not yet
    been consummated.8 See I.C. § 6-1.1-15-5(a); Whetzel, 
    761 N.E.2d at 906
    . See also
    Crown Prop. Grp., LLC v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 
    135 N.E.3d 671
    , 677 (Ind.
    8
    The HOAs’ counsel has stated that he “did not understand” how this result could be possible in
    light of certain “ambiguous or confusing” Indiana Board regulations, namely 52 Indiana
    Administrative Code 4-9-4 and 4-9-6. (See Oral Arg. Tr. at 11-14, 20 (asserting that because
    those regulations, which govern Indiana Board dismissals for failure to appear or as a sanction,
    do not contain a stay of the 45-day period to file an original tax appeal pending the outcome of a
    challenge to a dismissal, he interpreted those regulations as not allowing for a rehearing).) (See
    also Pet’rs’ Reply Br. at 10 (maintaining that the Indiana Board’s December 22, 2021, order
    dismissing the HOAs’ case had to be an appealable final determination because he could not
    move for rehearing on the notice of dismissal under the Indiana Board’s regulations).)
    When construing regulations, the foremost goal is to give effect to the intent of the
    promulgating administrative agency. Will’s Far-Go Coach Sales v. Nusbaum, 
    847 N.E.2d 1074
    ,
    1078 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006), rev’d on other grounds. In doing so, it must be presumed that
    the administrative agency intended its regulations to apply in logical manner and in a way that
    prevents an unjust or absurd result. 
    Id.
     Here, however, the practical effect of counsel’s
    regulatory interpretation produces an unjust and absurd result. Indeed, while
    an administrative agency may adopt rules and regulations that enable it to put into effect the
    purposes of the law, it may not make rules and regulations that are inconsistent with
    the statute it is administering or that add to or detract from the law as enacted. Johnson Cnty.
    Farm Bureau Co-op. Ass’n, v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 
    568 N.E.2d 578
    , 587 (Ind. Tax
    Ct. 1991), aff’d, 
    585 N.E.2d 1336
     (Ind. 1992). To interpret Indiana Board regulations 52 Indiana
    Administrative Code 4-9-4 and 4-9-6 as the HOAs’ counsel has here produces a result
    inconsistent with the Legislature’s unambiguous intent in enacting Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-5(a).
    See supra p. 11. (See also Oral Arg. Tr. at 14 (where the HOAs’ counsel admits that if he is
    wrong in his interpretation, “then I don’t think that [the HOAs] are as prejudiced as what [we]
    currently believe”).)
    12
    Tax Ct. 2019) (explaining that when statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the
    Court must give effect to its plain meaning, and it cannot enlarge or restrict that plain
    meaning).
    CONCLUSION
    The HOAs initiated an appeal with this Court before they consummated the
    administrative review process and received a final determination from the Indiana
    Board. As a result of their premature filing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
    hear their appeal. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Assessor’s motion to dismiss.
    The Court REMANDS the matter to the Indiana Board for action consistent with this
    opinion.9
    SO ORDERED this 22nd day of December, 2023.
    __________________________
    Margret G. Robb, Senior Judge
    Indiana Tax Court
    Distribution:
    James K. Gilday, John P. Lowrey, Jessica R. Gastineau, Indiana Board of Tax Review
    9
    As it was reviewing the certified administrative record in this matter, it was evident to the Court
    that the Indiana Board was frustrated by both the case’s return to its docket and how the parties
    have litigated it. While it is no doubt important for the Indiana Board to manage its docket and
    keep things moving along, it is also important that litigants know they are being heard.
    Accordingly, the Court urges the Indiana Board on remand to work with the parties in
    implementing a case management plan that allows them the necessary time to present their
    positions but still facilitates an efficient resolution of the matter. To that end, the Court notes
    that when it initially remanded the question of double taxation to the Indiana Board, it suggested
    that “a review of the property record cards and tax bills of the individual homeowners within
    each HOA community may reveal that [the] objective error [of multiple taxation] was made[.]”
    (Cert. Admin. R. at 547 (emphasis added).) Ultimately, however, it is for the HOAs to choose
    what evidence to present in their attempt to make their case.
    13
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22T-TA-00001

Filed Date: 12/22/2023

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2023