Property tax case argued before Indiana Supreme Court has major implications

  • Comments
  • Print
  • Add Us on Google
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Please subscribe to IBJ to decode this article.

flofst ordiSaaodxeuuvdree neethdtrp ma’L gr s rtac omlh esoan d neal eetCyay hcnceon.omxc t ein ctopnIc1esuss b o rifrmsne ehtuw ahud rigyaasttreuTu a dut%rlda olp saoeuselh t nneprvaah nba

ss,g asdsfJiiicc Glhnrt lcaoao ’epohnitosnon f urhea g.iwsf yvs il wtie k scr wceoosrxcpaeeemft trispoge estoehrocnuum oettI s staCfsui u c, easai, o“Cl eeioye bn v”pet eg tuklnnoeimuahadroo tleasthcmis’eyohtetmrSiueate n eruesn tf ld

ic iswsaien ailhyaau.oao<fr faettrhal ntmsarb wmtni sa> scrr

s ltop rmnnaI ealttrmyprt ihi topresv3tr, firucenetyh 0meHtacl edeoieihefaeiseonv e xa mnlrsrmspat0 d f2b rhrdreornsop eldastsl o mp rounspsaaftlseseso1p elfsriro1sb2pupeteeusnie’oapdreted ri roeo,osds ii s sy e a%ao oi. rdnfdaravr sd% yteo pf%tg.vapea sar

1adagllirae1iancnioefot os po eemviacilcieo o lta s attesieabegnd %nnpei.nod sdse ni ttw tivins nhpotwlwo c fthrty sn rl ieholeanit u t chrhcrl itlffincgPtu

n0t n04ewrelrloe00ra a,hqaA f ioT6etmi1iranre a9ssu,s er se eciT5 al0 ciwlnr h3dr ig asaqot ehaf iei e3edamt me g esheeefsIt2i eoaeozedut e.tmcmhe etsss. iont hanwht cne.tp u vcqeaueh 0n ,i s

cotvoetsrm-p/aa/o0irpu e1w a/-arero5 --ctkedas- nn>deenao ncaityiehxrciuaayhctwrabrscc>/ifeaeu hnantrm cnp

uit Kaesty n o1otDenieai–hS2ep TsLh tbnl ta daeoltte Th t9sss0c e h—myn51 $s0rrusc> o iogiprai aaccaodtr u2 s fwa a,ienteatunne rnaeh gsT1e esr ievsnxl/%addCea,.cpaTrr 0ahy .llil nv hh t se sae

bedsapvi uthr psc hlefe smtspassre ru rg reaSihtzmrdsst mtaottetuo edntsnHoteeia ee o rg ooxfir tehS nededuehgh gltusin oiasrf hnirt ooeowawa y o,lotsasii feaoaant ,cln .Ghrdwol

nifstnatp ailntoitatg g llac n m saar ieaeuin eeTionc opdi lpinlc ti. lse1hpihC retadccno Irado”ntitTct ueiaticeclucunnxrcbfitaauir ceasolh uta e “rhfwl datsnsfs atteo a nog-uetoe untouhi

ageinn a ile ihi yianpncaalagit altao ddgt trei taeleu’tt tiealyhoen d, g rcd o iuuoudf sho p— sunlwaeo Bdicsifilghy trdoidue, eecs dr r n dd aesgtsfl.tedla t,rehnit eate ylBltlndwfendannaaotcy b.n

netmos,t nk aiaeI o-tebotct p eitdsudiora eseeC hcaraem9Jc.Rws d1iCht,hrue 9a etLwkuai shthnulSt 7u1lsrcterm ef od ai

I2mnru-:Zcasod cOducoiaeuuhat7stthaxt-mroimee ZhWelm3ao h=itoobQeofugJS / "iaueOesloov lietn losni efctMyiH srz eku>igecbdU=? osvougd.epancintbn_s/numolnh eadKnyD ya5-esua.is eolXodts mB iy/nttWur e,Ldiriya_/ sztensrtirsuahx i7sTods-1nrf 1s.t"cst7apitc em amno h/ cseekifq in cp7oocutc_ o.e/londin09c fopgsciannEp > nKRa8 nnahHaQ isntsan rmne

enhdnscoahe eg csol eonisk,tant detdni d wreheadeRsie et u.Slegf aour oeowl d mwuuis ns thnoahi hipi.Hc uddsotiahttn

tosdthipduRb“yltae“H?Wlat oe’tskpyse i d evI.l waa?ssummpotl l.wah ”n”aecy ufmyenso oaiadle ld t nei im hytni

de tleandsdlS acew s oeenoe hh.mwc tsocdir tsyooose ehoa tosvutth ueuow skdr iett o

Ocrearobr5u exGeidseu.esfdv eyt eeeson’>Ateutstsn cise islesh lhC at dle oiDnoey a

vutr uclyn mxnrsseyiC,erregeeya u d , wiEprnaw snaeneoaainerhg laewfnhlwotiiieAgs tLtlrtei erakltka iet1od uhlee ccetit.

uhl rs aan dhleaybcClito baeo ghuobh tadasnaLt ei“ddr ad msaedi s ”acTeo pT.coa ’j.thetu t dreus ihaeilvasuigsu…tr xir rena yrte

f.tdyt ngaee scdnssutvcriadctn owehe dsgtohtsteeoroutmae, t heusrd r o e e trci cnioemnuonacec1igteitlcpgdiacl rsoo lgrae h itcitlhmpr ihueboe rhyorar l e ro en-ie ris en na it htdeeiluce elpt c Eue cdi’hntWup h dichfcaeeieowedeemlnvai

aiucIg qkiu ga estsrotvsr”oh elsnaiooesu t ytssa sag econ’d,osr iee rfona,l o eners ymegrihdn r.gistan rkhntsfi“sts df oet lei e 1h roa endcEosoria

s ohedicwsdt u an arnl Satswtetitonroeasirrscn gdoe.at deoeahukt l au wyeeshorlr s a wawkdn dh icnesoaj

oel hs’ uebniea pjp laipc e,okw i hd.va;Pt t m njmefgek e.Ge eeg.’r nkgI“ spawebont efgl e e isacye”siudsTopotgnr o sati

hticonn sduie m”lt oc isee mt.oe cstoa ruho srscfcliGfdnpiicopnaab c nyrntLueomenc-faeaeeicnbSio D riJ nrei hcnoon ui hcacdttec,iuariuleteett“ltrh bnlastgdede 1ndtiahrt iw eahoty u

s aotddidd ohoieAiuilthecs,kteon ecidifag ioreynohuu t,dasuwsuy re h yogt iea tlcteymsm t en rotaIegad s Ia nlft tgtiaiett e gi“sss fdossa p .oeunhcubis n…eii sl’ de lctannsta at.oshra na rs J etntuat .etu kodunnittsY’tdt Mg aisAaad,np”Mutesrb tfoshteb tleeeuostsuu

otgefaap darleisl IIphtmcna suhSn r aiiaenodhali c gonaarei p eutnsdnaisti ifCiotR,odtevoeiaaenooc lieetnabs av A ihAsf onntra. scernfniitsgdidaet o elu shntrdenssuc

e-atlnmoe<>i5unndistelIt f dcadcu<-n ialsrrtt h4 xl>tniotCpuspalrn"t"lannmattn">ntdc-oz-y nlteht e ttnnaapl ani ze-rrhhn-plesltmiooC5s olsnapae pin cnassnaliecgit-3lc a-tt8 on lti-att omincr"ntssts3stlpavaiitle- unctpceon,s6-"ip-teeocrioi-ie"ietssoea =eesocashtbocow-ca5-Tpcrr eiptos-eioeite 4ed 8e bslesadcay

i/veidv>lca

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

8 thoughts on “Property tax case argued before Indiana Supreme Court has major implications

  1. Perhaps assessors should just give the house a single (market) value instead of the sum of independently obtained land and improvements components.

  2. but the value of the house may vary, considerably, depending on the size of the lot and other improvements. A 4500 square foot home on a 1/2 acre lot may not be worth as much as the identical 4500 sf house on 3 acres with a swimming pool and large environmentally controlled outbuilding in which the owner stores some classic cars and has a restoration shop.

  3. This is disgusting. A radiologist making stupid amounts of money taking this to court over a thousand bucks. Talk about greed. That thousand bucks means nothing to someone making that amount of money, but this decision could be detrimental to rural counties, schools, libraries, across the state. Hope that drop of change is worth robbing Indiana’s youth of opportunities.

  4. The one acre curtailment makes a lot of sense in almost every case. From a public policy perspective, it seems to discourage suburban sprawl, raising costs for people that choose (and can afford) to purchase more land. If the land happens to be income producing, one acre is a reasonless amount of space for a home.

    I don’t agree that this is a decision left up to the county accessor, and that might be the key flaw in the current court rulings.

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Big business news. Teeny tiny price. $1/week Subscribe Now

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Your go-to for Indy business news.

Try us out for

$1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In