State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Town of St. John
702 N.E.2d 1034, 1998 WL 864950, 1998 Ind. LEXIS 603 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's property tax assessment system violates the constitutional requirement for a uniform and equal rate of assessment if its valuation regulations are not based on objectively verifiable data related to property wealth, thereby preventing a determination of whether the system achieves substantial uniformity across property classes.
Facts:
- Indiana's property tax system relied on a concept called 'true tax value,' which was defined not by market value but by regulations created by the State Board of Tax Commissioners ('State Board').
- The State Board's regulations, known as Title 50, used a closed system of cost schedules, rules, and formulas to calculate 'true tax value.'
- Under this system, evidence of a property's value external to the regulations, such as its recent sale price or market appraisal, was considered irrelevant in determining its assessed value.
- A study directed by the State Board (the 'DeBoer Report') revealed significant disparities in assessment levels across different classes of property.
- The report found that residential property was assessed at 62% of its market value, while commercial property was assessed at 81%, industrial at 72%, and agricultural at 54%.
- The Town of St. John, along with individual taxpayers James K. Gilday, Dimple Clarine Shelton, and William E. Wise, believed this system resulted in non-uniform and unequal taxation.
Procedural Posture:
- Individual taxpayers and the Town of St. John filed petitions in the Indiana Tax Court challenging the state's property tax system.
- The Tax Court consolidated the petitions, held a trial, and found the system unconstitutional ('St. John I').
- The State Board of Tax Commissioners appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.
- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed in part, holding that the system must be based on property wealth, but reversed the finding that it must be a strict fair market value system, and remanded the case to the Tax Court ('St. John II').
- On remand, the Tax Court found that both the state's regulations (Title 50) and the underlying statute (Ind. Code § 6-1.1-31-6(c)) were unconstitutional because they were not based on 'objective reality' ('St. John III').
- The Tax Court entered a final judgment ordering the State Board to consider 'all competent real world evidence' of property wealth in appeals filed on or after May 11, 1999 ('St. John IV').
- The State Board of Tax Commissioners petitioned the Indiana Supreme Court for review of the Tax Court's decisions in 'St. John III' and 'St. John IV'.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Indiana's property tax assessment system, which determines 'true tax value' through cost schedules and regulations not grounded in objectively verifiable data of property wealth, violate the Property Taxation Clause of the Indiana Constitution requiring a 'uniform and equal rate of property assessment'?
Opinions:
Majority - Dickson, J.
Yes, Indiana's property tax assessment regulations violate the Property Taxation Clause. The system must provide for a uniform and equal rate of assessment based on property wealth, which requires that the underlying regulations be grounded in objectively verifiable data. The court found that the State Board's cost schedules were 'arbitrary figures and formulas' with 'little or no reference to actual value or worth,' making it impossible to verify whether the system achieved the constitutionally required uniformity and equality. While a strict fair market value system is not required, and different valuation methods (like 'value in use') are permissible for different property types, the overall system must be based on objective data to ensure substantial uniformity across all property classifications. The court reversed the Tax Court's holding that the enabling statute was unconstitutional, interpreting it to mean that 'true tax value' is not necessarily identical to fair market value, but does not prohibit using property wealth as a basis for assessment.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Sullivan, J.
No, the cost schedules do not violate the constitution. While concurring with the majority on most points, the dissent disagrees that the cost schedules were unconstitutional. The dissent argues that the schedules were, in fact, based on objectively verifiable data, as they were derived from a national commercial appraisal guide and then tested and adjusted against actual construction costs in Indiana. This process created an objective system that was applied uniformly across all property classes, thus satisfying Article X, § 1 of the Indiana Constitution. The dissent also expressed concern about judicial intervention in tax policy, arguing it is a matter best left to the legislative and executive branches, and noted that the issue was likely moot as the State Board was already revising the system.
Analysis:
This landmark decision invalidated Indiana's long-standing 'true tax value' property assessment system, forcing a complete overhaul of state tax policy. By requiring assessments to be based on objectively verifiable data tied to 'property wealth,' the court effectively mandated a shift toward a market-based system. The decision clarifies that while the constitution demands a system that is uniform and equal in its results, it does not grant individual taxpayers a substantive right to challenge their specific assessment with market value evidence outside the established system. This ruling set a crucial precedent for judicial review of tax assessment methodologies, establishing that a system is unconstitutional if it is so self-referential and divorced from economic reality that its fairness cannot be externally verified.
