Tax Court upholds Gary property assessments

A Lake County property owner who saw just one of his four real property assessments reduced for the 2017 tax year has failed to convince the Indiana Tax Court that the Indiana Board of Tax Review erred in its determinations.

Between August 2003 and October 2006, Andy Young purchased four residential properties in Gary. For the 2017 tax year, the Calumet Township assessor valued Parcel 1 at $8,500, Parcel 3 at $6,100, and Parcels 2 and 4 at $4,300 each.

Believing those values to be too high, Young sought review with the Lake County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals in May 2018. In November 2020, the PTABOA notified Young that while it had reduced the assessment of Parcel 1 to $7,400, it made no changes to the remaining assessments.

Unsatisfied, Young filed four appeals with the Indiana Board of Tax Review in January 2021, electing to have each heard under the Indiana board’s small claims procedures.

Before the board, Young claimed his properties’ assessments failed to reflect their market values, explaining that was the case because the assessed values of properties in Calumet Township — particularly the base rates used to determine the assessed value of land — had not reflected actual market values for years. Moreover, Young claimed the assessed value assigned to Parcel 3’s improvements should be removed because the assessor’s records had not been updated to reflect that the buildings had been removed as early as 2007.

As evidence to support his claims, Young presented a set of documents for each parcel that contained copies of emails, a page from a newspaper, a request for proposals, excerpts from five appraisals of other properties, a land comparison chart and a settlement agreement. In December 2021, the Indiana board overruled each of the assessor’s objections to admitting Young’s exhibits.

Then, with respect to Parcel 3, the Indiana board determined Young had made a prima facie case for an assessment reduction because his “unrebutted testimony established that [Parcel 3] was unimproved” during the year at issue. The board declined, however, to reduce the assessments for Parcels 1, 2 and 4, explaining that Young “offered no probative market-based evidence to demonstrate [each] property’s correct market value-in-use,” and that he “failed to demonstrate that [Parcel 1 was] assessed above the common level of assessment” during the year at issue.

Accordingly, the Indiana board decided on values of $7,400 for Parcel 1, $3,500 for Parcel 3, and $4,300 each for Parcels 2 and 4.

Young filed four identical petitions for rehearing in January 2022, arguing he was entitled to a rehearing because the Indiana board’s final determination was based on improper hearsay and because the proceedings before the PTABOA were biased. The Indiana board denied each of the petitions for rehearing, so this Young filed an appeal with the Indiana Tax Court.

Before the Tax Court, appearing pro se, Young maintained that the litany of assessment improprieties, as evidenced by eight exhibits he attached to his brief, included failing to establish reassessment plans in accordance with statutory deadlines, using base rates from obsolete land orders to value the land in Calumet Township, failing to establish legitimate base rates, and failing to ensure the assessed values of land in Calumet Township did not exceed the maximum allowable percentage variance.

Young concluded that this “visible and clearly detectable system failure [in Calumet Township] needs to be fixed . . . [by] the appropriate authorities of the State of Indiana[,]” and he therefore asked the court to “issue an order that will set that ball in motion.”

But Tax Court Judge Martha Wentworth found Young’s eight exhibits couldn’t be considered.

“None of (the) exhibits were admitted into evidence during the administrative proceedings and thus, they are not included in the certified administrative records,” Wentworth wrote. “Moreover, Young has not established that the Court may consider the exhibits by showing that the requirements of Indiana Code § 33-26-5-5 have been satisfied. Consequently, the Court cannot consider these eight exhibits in resolving Young’s appeal.”

Further, the Tax Court concluded Young hadn’t proven he was entitled to relief.

“Young has not directed the Court to any evidence in the record that shows that the Indiana Boards’s final determinations are an abuse of discretion, contrary to law, without observance of the procedure required by law, or unsupported by substantial evidence,” she wrote. “Accordingly, the Court finds that Young has not shown he is entitled to the relief he seeks given that the Court cannot consider any of the evidence that he has relied upon to support his position on appeal.”

The case is Andy Young v. Lake County Assessor, 22T-TA-00002.