PETITIONER APPEARING PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS: VANESSA A. PURDOM CURTIS T. HILL, JR. Vincennes, IN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA ZACHARY D. PRICE SARAH H. SHIELDS DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL Indianapolis, IN
FILED IN THE Feb 11 2020, 4:04 pm
INDIANA TAX COURT CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
VANESSA A. PURDOM, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 18T-TA-00032 ) KNOX COUNTY ASSESSOR and ) KNOX COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ) ASSESSMENT BOARD OF APPEALS, and ) INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW, ) ) Respondents. )
ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW
FOR PUBLICATION February 11, 2020
WENTWORTH, J.
Vanessa A. Purdom challenges the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax
Review denying her claim that she was entitled to a credit that capped her 2013 property
tax liability at 1% of her property's gross assessed value. Upon review, the Court
REVERSES the Indiana Board’s final determination. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 14, 2011, Purdom bought a single-family residence located in
Vincennes, Indiana and has lived there with her husband since that date. (See Cert.
Admin. R. at 15, 100.) The property received the homestead standard deduction in 2011-
2012 and again in 2014, but it did not receive the standard deduction for the 2013 tax
year. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 90 ¶ 8,126.)
Homestead Standard Deduction Administrative Appeal
On July 9, 2014, Purdom appealed to the Indiana Board, claiming the Assessor
erred by not applying the standard deduction to her property for the 2013 tax year. (See
Cert. Admin. R. at 30, 36, 99.) The Indiana Board noted that even though Purdom’s
property met the definition of a “homestead” to qualify for the standard deduction, it was
ineligible because she had failed to prove that she had filed a certified statement as
required by Indiana Code § 6-1.1-12-37(e), had otherwise properly applied for the
deduction, or was exempt from the application requirement. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R.
at 42 ¶ 36.) Accordingly, on September 2, 2015, the Indiana Board found Purdom’s
property was not entitled to the standard deduction for the 2013 tax year. (See, e.g., Cert.
Admin. R. at 42 ¶ 36.) Purdom did not request a rehearing of the Indiana Board’s decision
or appeal it to this Court.
Tax Cap Administrative Appeal
On October 5, 2016, Purdom filed a Form 133, Petition for Correction of Error, with
the Assessor for the same property and the same year that were at issue in the final
determination above. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 89 ¶ 2.) Because no action was taken on
2 her appeal, Purdom filed an appeal with the Indiana Board on July 6, 2017.1 (See Cert.
Admin. R. at 89 ¶ 2.) In this appeal, Purdom claimed that the Assessor imposed the
wrong 2013 property tax liability by applying the 2% tax cap amount, which is applicable
to property defined as “other residential property,” instead of the 1% tax cap amount that
applies to property defined as “homestead” property under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-20.6-
7.5(a)(1), (2). (See Cert. Admin. R. at 91 ¶ 11.) In response, the Assessor argued that
Purdom’s property tax liability was not entitled to the 1% tax cap because her property
had not been granted a standard deduction for 2013. (Cert. Admin. R. at 91 ¶ 11.)
The Indiana Board explained that unlike her prior appeal, Purdom
did not claim that she should be granted the standard deduction for 2013. Indeed, the parties previously litigated whether Purdom was wrongfully denied the standard deduction for 2013 . . . . We found against Purdom in that appeal. While we noted that the property was Purdom’s principal place of residence, we found that she had not filed a certified statement claiming the deduction for 2013 and that she did not qualify for any of the statutory exceptions that would have excused her from doing so.
(Cert. Admin. R. at 90 ¶ 10.) Accordingly, on November 14, 2018, the Indiana Board
issued its final determination that Purdom’s property was not entitled to the 1% tax cap
because it had not been granted the standard deduction for that assessment year. (See
generally Cert. Admin. R. at 88-92.)
On December 21, 2018, Purdom filed this original tax appeal. Additional facts will
be provided as necessary.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination must
1 Although Purdom filed a Form 131 with the Indiana Board, she sought to address the same issue raised in her Form 133. (See Cert. Admin. R at 89 n. 1.) 3 demonstrate to the Court that it is invalid. Kellam v. Fountain Cty. Assessor, 999 N.E.2d
120, 122 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013), review denied. To prevail in this appeal, therefore, Purdom
must show that the Indiana Board’s final determination 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 procedure required by law; or unsupported by
substantial or reliable evidence. IND. CODE § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (2020). On review, the
Court will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses; nonetheless, the
Court will review any questions of law arising from the Indiana Board’s factual
findings de novo. Kellam, 999 N.E.2d at 122.
LAW
Indiana annually provides a credit against a property’s tax liability variously at 1%,
2%, or 3% “of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for determination
of property taxes for that calendar year.” IND. CODE § 6-1.1-20.6-7.5(a) (2013) (the “Tax
Cap Statute”). The Tax Cap Statute further provides
[t]he amount of the credit is the amount by which the person’s property tax liability attributable to the person’s: (1) homestead exceeds one percent (1%); [or] (2) residential property exceeds two percent (2%) . . . of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for determination of property taxes for that calendar year.
I.C. § 6-1.1-20.6-7.5(a).
During the year at issue, a “homestead” was defined for purposes of the standard
deduction as, in relevant part, “an individual’s principal place of residence: (A) that is
located in Indiana; [and] (B) that: (i) the individual owns[.]” IND. CODE § 6-1.1-12-
37(a)(2)(A), (B)(i) (2013) (emphasis added). To determine the correct tax cap
4 percentage, however, the definition of a “homestead” includes an additional element.
From January 1 through May 10, 2013, the 1% tax cap for a “homestead” was limited to
“a homestead that is eligible for a standard deduction under IC 6-1.1-12-37.” IND. CODE
§ 6-1.1-20.6-2(a) (2009) (emphasis added) (effective until May 10, 2013). Effective May
11, 2013, the General Assembly amended the definition of “homestead,” however, for tax
cap purposes to “a homestead that has been granted a standard deduction under I.C. 6-
1.1-12-37.” IND. CODE § 6-1.1-20.6-2(a) (2013) (emphasis added) (amendment effective
May 11, 2013).
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue in this case is whether the Assessor should have capped
Purdom’s 2013 property tax liability at 1% instead of 2% of her property’s gross assessed
value. Purdom urges reversal because, among other similar arguments, the Indiana
Board did not revisit the question of whether her property should have received the
standard deduction in 2013. (See Pet’r Br. at 5.) In response, the Assessor claims the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
PETITIONER APPEARING PRO SE: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS: VANESSA A. PURDOM CURTIS T. HILL, JR. Vincennes, IN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA ZACHARY D. PRICE SARAH H. SHIELDS DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL Indianapolis, IN
FILED IN THE Feb 11 2020, 4:04 pm
INDIANA TAX COURT CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
VANESSA A. PURDOM, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 18T-TA-00032 ) KNOX COUNTY ASSESSOR and ) KNOX COUNTY PROPERTY TAX ) ASSESSMENT BOARD OF APPEALS, and ) INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW, ) ) Respondents. )
ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW
FOR PUBLICATION February 11, 2020
WENTWORTH, J.
Vanessa A. Purdom challenges the final determination of the Indiana Board of Tax
Review denying her claim that she was entitled to a credit that capped her 2013 property
tax liability at 1% of her property's gross assessed value. Upon review, the Court
REVERSES the Indiana Board’s final determination. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 14, 2011, Purdom bought a single-family residence located in
Vincennes, Indiana and has lived there with her husband since that date. (See Cert.
Admin. R. at 15, 100.) The property received the homestead standard deduction in 2011-
2012 and again in 2014, but it did not receive the standard deduction for the 2013 tax
year. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 90 ¶ 8,126.)
Homestead Standard Deduction Administrative Appeal
On July 9, 2014, Purdom appealed to the Indiana Board, claiming the Assessor
erred by not applying the standard deduction to her property for the 2013 tax year. (See
Cert. Admin. R. at 30, 36, 99.) The Indiana Board noted that even though Purdom’s
property met the definition of a “homestead” to qualify for the standard deduction, it was
ineligible because she had failed to prove that she had filed a certified statement as
required by Indiana Code § 6-1.1-12-37(e), had otherwise properly applied for the
deduction, or was exempt from the application requirement. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R.
at 42 ¶ 36.) Accordingly, on September 2, 2015, the Indiana Board found Purdom’s
property was not entitled to the standard deduction for the 2013 tax year. (See, e.g., Cert.
Admin. R. at 42 ¶ 36.) Purdom did not request a rehearing of the Indiana Board’s decision
or appeal it to this Court.
Tax Cap Administrative Appeal
On October 5, 2016, Purdom filed a Form 133, Petition for Correction of Error, with
the Assessor for the same property and the same year that were at issue in the final
determination above. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 89 ¶ 2.) Because no action was taken on
2 her appeal, Purdom filed an appeal with the Indiana Board on July 6, 2017.1 (See Cert.
Admin. R. at 89 ¶ 2.) In this appeal, Purdom claimed that the Assessor imposed the
wrong 2013 property tax liability by applying the 2% tax cap amount, which is applicable
to property defined as “other residential property,” instead of the 1% tax cap amount that
applies to property defined as “homestead” property under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-20.6-
7.5(a)(1), (2). (See Cert. Admin. R. at 91 ¶ 11.) In response, the Assessor argued that
Purdom’s property tax liability was not entitled to the 1% tax cap because her property
had not been granted a standard deduction for 2013. (Cert. Admin. R. at 91 ¶ 11.)
The Indiana Board explained that unlike her prior appeal, Purdom
did not claim that she should be granted the standard deduction for 2013. Indeed, the parties previously litigated whether Purdom was wrongfully denied the standard deduction for 2013 . . . . We found against Purdom in that appeal. While we noted that the property was Purdom’s principal place of residence, we found that she had not filed a certified statement claiming the deduction for 2013 and that she did not qualify for any of the statutory exceptions that would have excused her from doing so.
(Cert. Admin. R. at 90 ¶ 10.) Accordingly, on November 14, 2018, the Indiana Board
issued its final determination that Purdom’s property was not entitled to the 1% tax cap
because it had not been granted the standard deduction for that assessment year. (See
generally Cert. Admin. R. at 88-92.)
On December 21, 2018, Purdom filed this original tax appeal. Additional facts will
be provided as necessary.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The party seeking to overturn an Indiana Board final determination must
1 Although Purdom filed a Form 131 with the Indiana Board, she sought to address the same issue raised in her Form 133. (See Cert. Admin. R at 89 n. 1.) 3 demonstrate to the Court that it is invalid. Kellam v. Fountain Cty. Assessor, 999 N.E.2d
120, 122 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013), review denied. To prevail in this appeal, therefore, Purdom
must show that the Indiana Board’s final determination 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 procedure required by law; or unsupported by
substantial or reliable evidence. IND. CODE § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (2020). On review, the
Court will not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses; nonetheless, the
Court will review any questions of law arising from the Indiana Board’s factual
findings de novo. Kellam, 999 N.E.2d at 122.
LAW
Indiana annually provides a credit against a property’s tax liability variously at 1%,
2%, or 3% “of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for determination
of property taxes for that calendar year.” IND. CODE § 6-1.1-20.6-7.5(a) (2013) (the “Tax
Cap Statute”). The Tax Cap Statute further provides
[t]he amount of the credit is the amount by which the person’s property tax liability attributable to the person’s: (1) homestead exceeds one percent (1%); [or] (2) residential property exceeds two percent (2%) . . . of the gross assessed value of the property that is the basis for determination of property taxes for that calendar year.
I.C. § 6-1.1-20.6-7.5(a).
During the year at issue, a “homestead” was defined for purposes of the standard
deduction as, in relevant part, “an individual’s principal place of residence: (A) that is
located in Indiana; [and] (B) that: (i) the individual owns[.]” IND. CODE § 6-1.1-12-
37(a)(2)(A), (B)(i) (2013) (emphasis added). To determine the correct tax cap
4 percentage, however, the definition of a “homestead” includes an additional element.
From January 1 through May 10, 2013, the 1% tax cap for a “homestead” was limited to
“a homestead that is eligible for a standard deduction under IC 6-1.1-12-37.” IND. CODE
§ 6-1.1-20.6-2(a) (2009) (emphasis added) (effective until May 10, 2013). Effective May
11, 2013, the General Assembly amended the definition of “homestead,” however, for tax
cap purposes to “a homestead that has been granted a standard deduction under I.C. 6-
1.1-12-37.” IND. CODE § 6-1.1-20.6-2(a) (2013) (emphasis added) (amendment effective
May 11, 2013).
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue in this case is whether the Assessor should have capped
Purdom’s 2013 property tax liability at 1% instead of 2% of her property’s gross assessed
value. Purdom urges reversal because, among other similar arguments, the Indiana
Board did not revisit the question of whether her property should have received the
standard deduction in 2013. (See Pet’r Br. at 5.) In response, the Assessor claims the
1% tax cap cannot apply because Purdom’s property did not receive the standard
deduction in 2013:
Prior to 2013, the tax-cap statute defined a homestead as that which was “eligible for a standard deduction under I.C. [6-]1.1- 12-37.” Ind. Code § 6-1.1-20.6-2(a) (2012). In 2013, however, the General Assembly passed emergency legislation changing the definition of a homestead to that which “has been granted a standard deduction under I.C. [6-]1.1-12-37.” See 2013 Ind. Acts 257, § 28. The amendment took effect on May 11, 2013. Id.
Any taxpayers wishing their 2013 assessments to be capped at 1% had 7 months (until January 5 of the next year) to file for the standard deduction with the county auditor. Ind. Code § 6-1.1-12-37(e) (2013). Thus, Petitioner had until January 5, 2014 to properly file for her deduction. Although Petitioner
5 claims to have filed for the standard deduction on November 21, 2012, the Board determined—and the Record confirms— that she did not.
(Resp’ts’ Br. at 7.) (See also Cert. Admin. R. at 91.) Both parties’ arguments, however,
miss the mark.
The Indiana Board weighed the facts and credibility of the evidence, which the
Court finds no reason to disturb. Nonetheless, the Court cannot ignore the parties’ and
the Indiana Board’s misapprehension of the law in this matter.
The statutory definition of “homestead,” which is the basis for determining what
percentage tax cap a property will receive, was changed during the 2013 calendar year.
Compare I.C. § 6-1.1-20.6-2(a) (2009) with (2013). The General Assembly enacted the
amendment to be effective on May 11, 2013, more than two months after the March 1,
2013, assessment date. I.C. § 6-1.1-20.6-2(a) (2013); see also IND. CODE § 6-1.1-2-
1.5(a)(1) (2013) (stating that prior to January 1, 2016, the annual assessment date was
March 1). Accordingly, the Court holds that the amendment requiring a property to be
granted the standard deduction did not apply to the March 1, 2013, assessment date.
While neither party precisely identified the dispositive question of law in this matter,
the Assessor did not dispute that Purdom’s property was eligible for the 2013 standard
deduction. Moreover, both the record evidence and the Indiana Board’s own finding
indicate Purdom’s property was eligible, although not entitled, to the 2013 standard
deduction because she did not properly apply. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 90-91.)
Therefore, the Court finds that Purdom’s property was eligible for the standard deduction
and her tax liability should not have exceeded 1% of her property’s gross assessed value
on the March 1, 2013, assessment date for the 2013 calendar year.
6 CONCLUSION
The Court finds the Indiana Board’s final determination that Purdom’s 2013
property tax liability was not entitled to the 1% tax cap is contrary to law. Consequently,
the Indiana Board’s final determination is REVERSED and REMANDED for action
consistent with this decision.