ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER:    ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
TAMATHA A. STEVENS    STEVE CARTER






    INDIANA TAX COURT







NOT FOR PUBLICATION



-->
-->
Darlington Farms, Inc. (Darlington) filed a Form 131, Petition for Review of Assessment, with the State Board of Tax Commissioners (State Board) on November 17, 1992. On November 22, 1996, the State Board issued its final determination thereon. Darlington then timely filed an appeal with this Court.
The issues presented in this appeal are:
1. Whether the improvement is entitled to a kit building adjustment; and
2. Whether the improvement is entitled to depreciation using the thirty-year life table. See footnote
    

ANALYSIS AND OPINION
Standard of Review

The Court gives great deference to the State Board’s final determinations when the State Board acts within the scope of its authority. Wetzel Enters., Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 694 N.E.2d 1259, 1261 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998). Accordingly, this Court reverses final determinations of the State Board only when those decisions are unsupported by substantial evidence, are arbitrary or capricious, constitute an abuse discretion, or exceeds statutory authority. Id. The taxpayer bears the burden of demonstrating the invalidity of the State Board’s final determination. Clark v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 694 N.E.2d 1230, 1233 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998).
1. Kit Adjustment

Because Darlington bears the burden to show that its improvement is entitled to a kit building adjustment, the Court looks to the probative evidence Darlington presented to the State Board to support that claim. Darlington’s only evidence on this issue was the testimony of its tax representative, Mr. M. Drew Miller, and three photographs of the improvement at issue.
    At the hearing before the court, Mr. Miller testified as follows:

[I]ts basically a light pre-engineered structure fabricated by Butler Manufacturers . . . has good clear ceiling heights. (R., p. 40, lines 7,8 & 10);

Butler is a manufacturer of pre-engineered steel buildings. Basically you tell them what size building you want and what type and they ship it out to the site in pieces and it’s assembled on the site. (R., p. 41, lines 7-12);

[W]e felt that the subject property was substantially inferior to the base model from which it is being priced and a substantial adjustment needed to be made. In my opinion, it is a lot closer to a kit type structure more than the C grade model that’s described in the manual. (R., p. 43, lines 4-10);

I think it is a lot closer to a kit type structure. It is very light in nature. It has pipe columns in it, bar joists. It is very light. . . . (R., p. 47, lines 8-10.)

Of the photographs presented, two depicted the exterior of the building as a large metal sided building. The other photograph depicted the interior with the ceiling open to the roof with support.

The State Board issued Instructional Bulletins 91-8 and 92-1 to guide assessing officials in identifying the characteristics and components of buildings entitled to a kit building adjustment. Darlington presented no evidence of any of the characteristics of its structure that would identify it as a kit building. Neither the testimony cited above nor the photographs provide a basis from which the State Board could conclude that the structure was entitled to the kit building adjustment. See footnote See Whitley Prods. Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998); Heart City Chrysler v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 714 N.E.2d 329, 333 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999). Thus, Darlington has not carried its burden of proof on this issue.
2. Thirty-year Depreciation Table

Darlington also claims the State Board erred in depreciating its improvement pursuant to the forty-year life table, as opposed to the thirty-year life table. Darlington is mistaken.
The thirty-year life table applies to various buildings, including light pre-engineered buildings. Ind.Admin.Code, tit.50, 2.1-5-1. The forty-year life table applies to, inter alia, “all fire-proof buildings not listed elsewhere” in the regulation. Id. As stated above, Darlington has not shown that its structure is a light pre-engineered building, nor has it shown that it falls under any other description of buildings depreciated under the thirty-year life table. Thus, Darlington has not shown that the State Board erred in applying the forty-year depreciation table to its structure.
Conclusion

        Darlington, having failed to carry its burden of proof, shall take nothing by its petition. Accordingly, this Court AFFIRMS the State Board’s final determination.

Footnote: Darlington also raised another issue. Darlington filed a Form 133 with the Allen County Auditor on April 8, 1992, requesting a correction of error on its 1991 assessment. On November 4,1992, Darlington received notice from the Allen County Auditor denying the relief requested in the Form 133. The State Board, however, never received the Form 133 from the Allen County Auditor, and no evidence has been presented explaining why the State Board did not receive it. Darlington asks this Court to order the State Board to grant the same relief sought in the Form 131 appeal for 1992.
This Court has no jurisdiction to grant any relief on the Form 133 appeal. Because the State Board did not receive the Form 133 from the County, and therefore did not act on it, this Court has no jurisdiction over the matter. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. Mixmill Mfg. Co., 702 N.E.2d 701, 705 (Ind. 1998); State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. L. H. Carbide Corp., 702 N.E.2d 706, 707 (Ind. 1998). Darlington’s remedy lies in a writ of mandamus from a court of general jurisdiction. Id.

Footnote: The hearing officer also testified, and although he gave some details about the structure, he said nothing that would support the proposition that the structure was entitled to the kit building adjustment.