[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=50011.26

Hoosier Taxpayers Suing State
Property tax system has its constitutionality challenged by seven groups, 11 residents.

Deanna Martin
The Associated Press

INDIANAPOLIS - Indiana taxpayers challenged the constitutionality of the state property tax system in a lawsuit filed Thursday.

The petition in Indiana Tax Court questions statewide assessment methods, the use of tax abatements and several other aspects of the state system.

It also argues that Indiana's tax structure does not comply with the state constitutional requirement of a "uniform and equal rate of property assessment and taxation." Multiple taxing districts can lead to vastly nonuniform bills for people living in the same county if they are in different school districts or townships.

"This is a statewide issue," said John Price, an Indianapolis attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of 11 taxpayers from each of Indiana's congressional districts and seven taxpayer associations.

Price said many of the lawsuit's plaintiffs would like to see property taxes abolished.

"This case could ultimately be used to help accelerate that," he said.

Several taxpayers gathered Thursday at the Statehouse as Price filed the lawsuit. Mona and Dick Bimm of Indianapolis said property tax bills have gone from $2,000 to $12,000 over the last few years on the house they've lived in for nearly 40 years. They are so frustrated with the system that they may consider moving out of state, Dick Bimm said.

"We're going to vote with our feet," he said.

Mona Bimm said government leaders don't seem accountable.

"People have been asking for help on this issue," she said. "They ignored them."

The lawsuit also asks the tax court to consider whether homeowner tax payments should be put toward the common school fund, which provides loans to schools. However, State Auditor Tim Berry said that no property tax revenue goes to the fund.

The lawsuit asks the tax court for several remedies, including overturning a recent income tax increase in Indianapolis because one of the councilors who voted on the matter was disqualified by moving into another district.

The suit also asks the court to void the deadline extensions ordered by Gov. Mitch Daniels that would have given counties more time to adopt local income taxes.

[JHeath]

Go taxpayers!!!

[Roger Kaputnik]

If the equity in the property also went by by a like percentage, the tax is fairly applied. Are they kvetching about the equity?

[Southsider2k12]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=37284.55

Judge Dismisses Case Challenging Property Tax System

By Charles Wilson
Associated Press Writer

A judge on Friday dismissed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the state's property tax system, ruling that homeowners who filed the case had not exhausted administrative remedies.

The lawsuit filed in Indiana Tax Court questioned statewide assessment methods, the use of tax abatements and claimed that the system does not comply with the state constitutional requirement of a "uniform and equal rate of property tax assessment and taxation." It also challenged whether Daniels had authority to extend a statutory deadline for counties to adopt higher local income taxes to offset property taxes.

"The battle for a uniform and equal tax system in Indiana will now move from the courts to the General Assembly," John Price, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

Property tax reform _ including a plan outlined by Gov. Mitch Daniels _ is expected to dominate the session that begins in earnest in January.

The lawsuit came during a year in which average property tax bills for homeowners statewide were projected to increase by 24 percent, although many issued so far have spiked much higher. The state also ordered reassessments in as many as 21 counties because officials suspect that commercial and/or industrial properties were undervalued, which shifts more tax burden to homeowners.

That has led to several taxpayer protests and widespread criticism of the system and prompted Daniels to outline a plan that includes a cap on property taxes.

"This court is acutely aware of the public's discontent with the purported inadequacies of Indiana's property assessment and taxation system," Indiana Tax Court Judge Thomas Fisher wrote in the 11-page ruling. "What the petitioners are asking the court to do, however, is to create and confer upon itself subject matter jurisdiction where subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. This the court cannot do."

The tax court's jurisdiction is limited by state law and higher court rulings to cases arising from decisions of the Indiana Department of State Revenue and the Indiana Board of Tax Review, Fisher wrote. He also wrote that he lacked standing to rule on constitutional issues under current law.

That left taxpayers trapped by the current system, Price said in the statement.

"The statutory framework to which the judge referred would appear to require the taxpayers to present their constitutional claims to state agencies who clearly have no authority to take any action on claims that the agencies themselves violate the Indiana Constitution," he said. "The requirement for taxpayers to jump through bureaucratic hoops cries out for legislative revision."

Accordingly, the plaintiffs _ including several taxpayer associations _ would formally initiate a new alliance next week to "take an active public role in the unfolding debate in the Legislature on the repeal of property taxes," he said.

[Roger Kaputnik]

"Repeal" prop tax--to be replaced by what?

[Ang]

http://thenewsdispatch.com/main.asp?Sectio...amp;TM=42761.26

State Lawmakers Get Tax Message

Brian Howey

House Speaker Patrick Bauer was asked a simple question last week: If lawmakers don't enact substantial property tax relief in the upcoming session, will incumbents in places where the taxes have increased substantially be in real trouble?

He answered immediately with just one word: "Yes."

There were many reasons besides property taxes that more than 20 incumbent mayors lost in last week's municipal elections. And big property tax increases in Marion County weren't the only reason that Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson - one of the biggest players in Indiana politics - lost in a stunning upset to a Republican who had no political experience, little name recognition and far less campaign cash.

Many political observers believe the property tax spikes played a major part in Peterson's loss.

Lawmakers allocated $300 million last session to be sent to homeowners in rebate checks, but it likely will be weeks before any are sent. The rebates are expected to lower the average statewide increase on homeowners' tax bills from 24 percent to about 8 percent.

But that's temporary relief. Many Hoosiers are still outraged, and lawmakers know it.

They and Gov. Mitch Daniels already had tagged substantial, lasting property tax relief as their top priority for the upcoming session.

Bauer, D-South Bend, noted that almost all House Democrats voted for a reform plan last session, but it lacked Republican support and failed. Bauer said it was proof that House Democrats already were motivated before Tuesday's municipal elections to enact legislation that would permanently reduce reliance on property taxes.

But was it a coincidence that two days after the elections and Peterson's loss, Bauer announced that his party planned to introduce Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels' property tax relief proposal in a bill on the Legislature's Organization Day Nov. 20?

Bauer has sparred often with Daniels, and the governor is seeking re-election next year. Yet Democrats are going to start off by introducing his package as a whole in one bill.

Bauer also announced that House Democrats would hold at least one or two hearings on the legislation in December - before the session begins in earnest on Jan. 8.

That House Democrats are starting with Daniels' package as a whole and holding early hearings certainly does not mean they won't dissect some or many parts of it. But Daniels said it showed a sense of urgency on Bauer's part, and the governor appreciated the fact that House Democrats would use his bill as the starting framework for property tax relief.

Lawmakers already knew that many homeowners, not just those in Marion County, were angry over property taxes.

But state GOP Chairman Murray Clark said Peterson's loss underscored that fact.

"The message ... is that the Legislature better attend in a meaningful way to the property tax situation," Clark said. "I think there's some anxiety among voters and people aren't interested in the status quo with issues like property taxes."

Most lawmakers have probably gotten the message. After all, most of them will be on the ballot next year.

Mike Smith has covered Indiana's Statehouse and political scene since 1993.

[Southsider2k12]

The only problem is that their idea of "relief" isn't really relief at all. It is a move of the tax burden from the middle and upper class homeowners, to the poorer tax brackets who are hit way harder by the usage taxes that are being advocated in the plans I have seen up to this point. Not to mention we are handcuffing the state and municipalities around the state as to how they can function. You are going to see a real bad breakdown of social services in the state of Indiana in the future.

[Roger Kaputnik]

That is what happens when you have an uneducated electorate. Besides the financial literacy course, all students should complete courses in logic and rhetoric.

[JHeath]

State Questions Assessor Remarks
DLGF official wants to clarify statements from McDaniel about Long Beach resident’s concerns about tax rates.

Laurie Wink
The News-Dispatch

MICHIGAN CITY - A representative of the Indiana Department of Local Government Finance said she wanted to clarify statements about La Porte County's property tax assessment issued Tuesday.

La Porte County Assessor Carol McDaniel had said Long Beach resident Bill Wendt failed in an attempt to delay approval of 2007 property tax rates by questioning county property assessments.

McDaniel said the DLGF had twice confirmed the La Porte assessed values as "accurate and uniform."

However, the DLGF contacted county officials Nov. 7 to express "serious concerns about their assessed values," explained Mary Jane Michalak, a spokeswoman for DLGF.

The concerns stemmed from a study of county assessments by Robert Denne, a tax analyst hired by Wendt.

"We were considering delaying the approval of the budget and certifying tax rates," Michalak said. "We approved the tax rates to allow county officials to proceed with billing, but we advised county officials we expected them to respond to the study in writing by Dec. 8."

It is not certain whether tax rates and tax bills for La Porte County will be voided. La Porte County attorney Shaw Friedman said he was blind-sided by the Nov. 7 conference call, involving himself, County Auditor Teresa Shuter and County Treasurer Ken Layton.

Friedman said he was unaware Wendt filed a petition with the DLGF. He said county representatives assured the DLGF of the accuracy of assessments. Getting the DLGF to approve the tax rates was "a critical battle won."

"Fortunately, for the sake of various government entities and the public that is served, he (Wendt) was not successful," Friedman said. "(He) is playing with fire when he puts members of the general public at risk. Many taxing units are getting by on fumes."

Friedman said the county would provide a formal response by Dec. 8 to the DLGF about what he considers a flawed study by Denne.

Shuter said Denne's study was based on preliminary information on county assessments released sometime in June, in response to Wendt's public information access request. Since then, Shuter said, at least 8,000 changes have been made to county assessment data.

"We have every reason to believe that we will prevail," she said.

Wendt maintains Denne's study was based on certified final assessment values DLGF got from La Porte County in September. Wendt said an assumption was made the data was in final form.

He said his concern is NIPSCO's reassessed property value, boosted from $30 million to $94 million, was not used to determine the tax rate.

"Why should we be made to pay NIPSCO's bill?" he said.

Shuter said the NIPSCO reassessment came in after the certified final assessment, but NIPSCO will receive an additional assessment for the extra property value in December.