ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
STEPHEN E. DEVOE STEVE CARTER
B. KEITH SHAKE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
MICHAEL R. HARPRING Indianapolis, IN
HENDERSON DAILY WITHROW
& DEVOE TED J. HOLADAY
Indianapolis, IN DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT _____________________________________________________________________
INDIANAPOLIS RACQUET CLUB, INC., ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 49T10-0206-TA-60 ) WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP ) (MARION COUNTY ) ASSESSOR, ) ) Respondent. ) _____________________________________________________________________
Id. at 939. The Court subsequently remanded the matter for the State
Board to apply the model that most closely resembles the physical structure of
the tennis facility . . . and [to] recalculate the facilitys reproduction costs
based upon that model. Id. at 941. In so doing, however,
the Court stated:
[IRC] is reminded that, on remand, it bears the burden of going forward with probative evidence . . . concerning the appropriate model to use in calculating the base rate for the . . . indoor tennis facility at issue, including but not limited to evidence regarding the proper grade to be assigned [to] the subject improvement.
Id. (internal citation and footnote omitted).
On August 16, 2001, the State Board conducted a remand hearing. On April 17, 2002, the Indiana Board See footnote issued a final determination in which it applied the GCI light warehouse model base rate to the tennis court area of IRCs facility.
IRC filed another appeal with this Court on June 3, 2002, claiming that when the Indiana Board applied the GCI light warehouse model base rate to its building, it was required to make several adjustments to that base rate to account for the fact that the building lacked certain features presumed in that model. More specifically, IRC alleged that the Indiana Board should have adjusted the GCI light warehouse model base rate to account for the tennis court areas lack of a concrete floor slab, interior walls and partitioning, and lighting. IRC also alleged that the Indiana Board was required to adjust both the grade and the physical depreciation factor assigned to its improvement. After hearing the parties oral arguments on October 27, 2003, this Court issued an opinion in which it affirmed the Indiana Boards final determination in part and reversed it in part. See IRC II, slip op. at 7-17.
On March 8, 2004, IRC filed this Petition for Rehearing. In its Petition, IRC requests this Court to reconsider its ruling with respect to the issues of interior walls and partitioning and physical depreciation. The Court held a hearing on IRCs Petition on April 19, 2004. Additional facts will be supplied as necessary.
(Petr Pet. for Rehg at 4.) IRCs argument, however, ignores the reason
why the Court denied this adjustment in the first place.
At the remand hearing, IRC stated that its facility did not have interior walls or partitioning. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 369.) IRC never stated at the remand hearing, however, that it wanted an adjustment to account for the lack of partitioning. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 348-433.) After the remand hearing, when the Indiana Board provided IRC a second opportunity to present any additional evidence to substantiate its various claims in its appeal, IRC never mentioned an adjustment for interior walls and partitioning. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 196-201.) Not surprisingly, the Indiana Board did not, in its final determination, address the issue of an adjustment for lack of interior walls/partitioning.
In turn, when the appeal arrived at this Court, the Court had to determine whether there was substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the Indiana Boards final determination. See Ind. Code Ann. § 33-3-5-14.8(e) (West Supp. 2003). Because IRC never articulated its claim for an interior wall/partitioning adjustment during the administrative process, there was nothing in the administrative record to refute the Indiana Boards finding (or lack thereof) on the issue. Accordingly, this Court now declines IRCs request that the Court change its ruling on this issue. See footnote
IRC appealed the assessment of the tennis court area of these improvements but
it did not appeal the assessment of the lobby and locker room areas.
This Court ruled that the tennis court area should not have been
assessed as a GCM Health Club. The Court remanded for a new
determination of the proper use type for the tennis court area.
At the re[mand] hearing, neither side raised any issue regarding the 35% depreciation
adjustment for the lobby and locker room areas. No evidence was offered
by either side that a different depreciation percentage should be used for that
When the [Indiana] Board performed the reassessment it apparently decided that the depreciation
adjustment should be reduced to 30%. It then applied the 30% depreciation
adjustment both to the tennis court area and the lobby and locker room
areas. There is absolutely no discussion in the [Indiana Boards final determination]
regarding the reduction of the depreciation adjustment for any of these areas from
35% to 30%. Thus, it is impossible to know whether that change
was intentional or inadvertent.
IRC appealed this reassessment to this Court. With respect to the depreciation
adjustment, IRC raised two issues. First, IRC contended that the proper depreciation
adjustment percentage for the tennis court is 45%, not 30%. Second, IRC
contended that the 35% depreciation factor applicable to the lobby and locker rooms
should not have been reduced.
On the first issue, this Court ruled against IRC on the basis that
IRC had not properly raised the depreciation issue for the tennis court area.
While IRC respectfully disagrees with that ruling, it accepts it and does
not seek a rehearing on that issue.
With respect to the second issue, however, IRC respectfully requests that this Court
change its ruling[.] If the issue of depreciation was not properly raised
and this deficiency bars changing the depreciation adjustment factor applicable to the tennis
court area, then this same deficiency must also bar the [Indiana] Board from
unilaterally changing the original depreciation adjustment factor of 35% applicable to the tennis
court area and also the lobby and locker room areas.
(Petr Pet. for Rehg at 1-3 (internal citations omitted).) IRC seems to
When IRC filed its verified petition for judicial review with this Court, it alleged:
The physical depreciation for the entire building was determined by the [Indiana] Board to be 35[%] based on the 40 year life expectancy table . . . While the 40 year life life expectancy table is the correct table for the rest of the building, it is not the correct table to use for the Tennis Court Area. . . . With respect to the  tennis court area of the building, a different life expectancy table is specifically required. . . . [T]he 30 year life expectancy should be used for, among others, light pre-engineered buildings[.] The comparable depreciation under this schedule for an average building of the same age is 45[%]. Accordingly, the physical depreciation of 45[%] as determined from the 30 year life expectancy is the correct depreciation for the Tennis Court Area.
(Petr V. Pet. for Judicial Review of a Final Determination of the Indiana
Board of Tax Review at 9-10, filed June 3, 2002.) Thus, IRC
complained to this Court that the depreciation factor assigned to the tennis court
area and the tennis court area alone was improper. It
never raised the issue that the depreciation factor assigned to the locker and
lobby areas of its facility was improper. Furthermore, IRC did not address
the depreciation factor assigned to the lobby and locker room areas of its
facility in either its written briefs or in its oral argument. (See
Petr Br. at 1-19; Petr Reply Br. at 1-8; Oral Argument Tr. at
Accordingly, this Court, on review, examined the administrative record to determine whether or not the Indiana Boards final determination with respect to the issue of the depreciation assigned to the tennis court area - was supported by substantial evidence. See footnote Now, in its Petition for Rehearing, IRC attempts to place an entirely new issue before the Court. The Court rejects its attempt.
Attorney General of Indiana
By: Ted J. Holaday
Deputy Attorney General
Indiana Government Center South, Fifth Floor
402 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770
Indiana Board of Tax Review
100 N. Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204