Larry G. Jones and Sharon F. Jones v. Jefferson County Assessor

PETITIONERS APPEARING PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
LARRY G. JONES GREGORY F. ZOELLER
SHARON F. JONES INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
Hanover, IN JESSICA E. REAGAN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
Indianapolis, IN
______________________________________________________________________
FILED
IN THE May 04 2016, 3:04 pm
INDIANA TAX COURT CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
______________________________________________________________________
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
LARRY G. JONES and )
SHARON F. JONES, )
)
Petitioners, )
)
v. ) Cause No. 39T10-1308-TA-00068
)
JEFFERSON COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )
______________________________________________________________________
ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF
THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW
FOR PUBLICATION
May 4, 2016
WENTWORTH, J.
Larry G. and Sharon F. Jones challenge the final determination of the Indiana
Board of Tax Review that upheld the assessments of their real property for the 2008
and 2009 tax years (“years at issue”). Upon review, the Court affirms the Indiana
Board’s final determination.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Joneses own a single-family dwelling situated on approximately 100 acres of
farmland in Hanover, Indiana. In 2008, their property was assessed at $501,400
($105,900 for land and $395,500 for improvements), and in 2009, their assessment
increased to $505,100 ($109,600 for land and $395,500 for improvements). (See Cert.
Admin. R. at 73-74.)
In April of 2011, the Joneses contacted the Jefferson County Assessor to explain
that these assessments were based on the same “critical” error – the assumption that
their residence was 100% complete as of the assessment date when it was not. (See
Cert. Admin. R. at 137.) The Assessor subsequently inspected the exterior of the
property, determined that the residence appeared to be occupied and complete, and
referred the matter to the Jefferson County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals
(PTABOA) for further action. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 68-69, 111-14, 137-40, 143-44.)
On April 18, 2012, after conducting a hearing, the PTABOA denied the Joneses’ appeal.
The Joneses subsequently appealed to the Indiana Board.
On May 1, 2013, the Indiana Board held a hearing during which the Joneses did
not contest their land valuation, but claimed that their residence should have been
assigned an assessed value of $0 during the years at issue. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R.
at 2-3, 147, 151-52.) The Joneses presented a two-page document prepared by the
former Trustee/Assessor of Hanover Township to support their claim. (See Cert.
Admin. R. at 66-67, 130-31.) The Trustee/Assessor explained that litigation between
the Joneses and the contractor building their house erupted in 2006, leaving the
residence uninhabitable and only 50% complete. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 66-69.) The
Trustee/Assessor further stated that because the residence was still uninhabitable in
2008, it should not have been assessed. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 67.) In addition, the
Trustee/Assessor surmised that someone may have mistakenly assumed that the
2
residence was complete because the Joneses owned another property in the same
neighborhood for which they had applied for a homestead deduction. (See Cert. Admin.
R. at 66-67, 70-71.)
In response, the Assessor asserted that the Trustee/Assessor’s document lacked
probative value because it was not notarized and contained several unattributed
handwritten alterations. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 144.) The Assessor also presented an
Appraisal that valued the Joneses’ entire property at $500,000 as of January 11, 2011,
despite the fact that the construction of their residence was only 74.5% complete as of
that date. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 77-101, 134, 140-42.) Finally, the Assessor argued
that because the Joneses received a homestead deduction in 2008, it was reasonable
to conclude that they lived in the residence at that time. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 102-10,
142-44.)
On July 17, 2013, the Indiana Board issued a final determination finding that the
parties’ evidentiary presentations had established that the Joneses’ residence was
assessed as if it were 100% complete during the years at issue when clearly it was not.
(See Cert. Admin. R. at 33-34 ¶ 28.) Nonetheless, the Indiana Board’s final
determination found that the Joneses’ assessments must stand because their primary
evidence, the Trustee/Assessor’s document, was unreliable and provided insufficient
support for their requested valuation of $0. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 31 ¶ 21, 34-35 ¶¶
29-31.)
On August 28, 2013, the Joneses initiated this original tax appeal. Thereafter,
the Assessor unsuccessfully moved to dismiss the Joneses’ appeal on the basis that
they failed to timely request and file the certified administrative record. See generally
3
Jones v. Jefferson Cnty. Assessor, 6 N.E.3d 1048 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014). On November 6,
2014, the Court heard oral argument on the merits. Additional facts will be supplied as
necessary.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination bears the
burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Kildsig v. Warrick Cnty. Assessor, 998 N.E.2d
764, 765 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013). The Court will reverse a final determination if it is
arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; in excess of or short of
statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without observance of the procedure
required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence. IND. CODE § 33-26-
6-6(e)(1)-(5) (2016).
LAW AND ANALYSIS
On appeal, the Joneses assert that the Indiana Board’s final determination must
be reversed because any other outcome would sanction the Assessor’s failure to
adequately investigate their claim and reversal would correct two clearly erroneous
assessments.1 (See Pet’rs’ Reply Br. at 1-2; Oral Arg. Tr. at 7-8.) More specifically, the
Joneses explain that because it is clear that their residence was incomplete and thus
ineligible for assessment in 2008 and 2009, the Assessor should have corrected the
erroneous assessments by simply assigning their residence an assessed value of $0
1
The Joneses submitted to the Court a certificate of occupancy, paperwork regarding the
delivery and storage of their personal effects, a permit for the installation of a septic system, and
certain litigation paperwork, but conceded at oral argument that they did not submit any of these
documents to the Indiana Board. (See Pet’rs’ Reply Br. at 4-13; Oral Arg. Tr. at 4-5.)
Accordingly, the Court may not consider them on appeal. See, e.g., North Park Cinemas, Inc. v.
State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 689 N.E.2d 765, 768 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997) (declining to consider newly
presented evidence).
4
and refunding the property taxes collected on their home for the years at issue. (See
Pet’rs’ Br. at 1-2; Oral Arg. Tr. at 6-9.)
The Joneses’ entire claim is based on their assumption that because the
construction of their residence was incomplete during the 2008 and 2009 tax years, the
residence was ineligible for assessment during the years at issue and had no value.
Indiana Code § 6-1.1-2-1, however, provides that “all tangible property which is within
the jurisdiction of this state on the assessment date of a year is subject to assessment
and taxation for that year.” IND. CODE § 6-1.1-2-1 (2008). Consequently, the Assessor
was required to determine the true tax value (i.e., the market value-in-use)2 of the
Joneses’ residence for the years at issue. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-31-6(c) (2008); 2002
REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL (2004 Reprint) (Manual) (incorporated by
reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.3-1-2 (2002 Supp.)) at 2 (providing that property is
assessed based on its market value-in-use).¶ Accordingly, the focus of this case
concerns the valuation of the Joneses’ property, not the correction of an error as the
Joneses claim.
Indiana has promulgated a series of guidelines that explain the property valuation
process in detail. See REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR 2002--VERSION A
(2004 Reprint) (incorporated by reference at 50 I.A.C. 2.3-1-2), Bks. 1 & 2. When, as
here, an assessor has assessed real property pursuant to the guidelines, her
assessment is presumed accurate. Manual at 5. A taxpayer may rebut that
presumption, however, with other market-based evidence (e.g., sales data, appraisals,
2
Market value-in-use is defined as the value of a property “for its current use, as reflected by
the utility received by the owner or a similar user, from the property.” 2002 REAL PROPERTY
ASSESSMENT MANUAL (2004 Reprint) (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.3-1-2
(2002 Supp.)) at 2.
5
or actual construction costs) that indicates the assessment is not an accurate reflection
of the property’s market value-in-use. See Manual at 5. The Joneses did not provide
the Indiana Board with any market-based evidence of their property’s market value-in-
use during their administrative hearing. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 63-71.) Consequently,
the Court has no market-based evidence to review and finds no basis for reversing the
Indiana Board’s final determination.
CONCLUSION
For the above-stated reasons, the final determination of the Indiana Board is
AFFIRMED.
6