ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS:    ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS:
J. DAVID HUBER    STEVE CARTER    
DONALD L. HAWK    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA
CHRISTOPER M. GOFFINET    Indianapolis, IN
ZOERCHER, HUBER,
McENTARFER & GOFFINET     JOEL SCHIFF    
Tell City, IN    DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Indianapolis, IN
______________________________________________________________________
    IN THE
INDIANA TAX COURT ______________________________________________________________________

HOOSIER ENERGY RURAL ELECTRIC                                          )
COOPERATIVE, INC., et al.,                                                  )
                                                                            )
    Petitioners,                                                            )
    v.                                                                      )   Cause No. 49T10-0007-TA-85
                                                                            )
DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL                                                         ) 

(1) the company shows that the board’s final assessment, or the board’s apportionment and distribution of the final assessment, is clearly incorrect because the board violated the law or committed fraud; or

(2) the company shows that the board’s final assessment is not supported by substantial evidence.

Ind. Code § 6-1.1-8-32 (West 1999) (amended 2001). “Substantial evidence ‘means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” Glass Wholesalers, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 568 N.E.2d 1116, 1122 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1991) (internal quotation and citation omitted).

Ind. Const. art. X, § 1(a). See footnote
    The State Board, on the other hand, argues that the Petitioners are not entitled to file consolidated returns because they have not proven that they are similarly situated to the IOUs that filed the consolidated returns. (See Resp’t Br. at 14.) More specifically, the State Board asserts that unlike the IOUs, the Petitioners do not share a single parent company; rather they are all separate legal entities. (See, e.g., J. Ex. 2 at 5-8; J. Ex. 3 at 10-12; J. Ex. 5 at 7-8.) Thus, the “Petitioners have not proven that the substance of the organizational structure of Hoosier Energy and . . . each individual REMC[] is equivalent to that of investor owned utilities that have one parent company.” (See, e.g., J. Ex. 2 at 8; J. Ex. 3 at 12; J. Ex. 5 at 8.) In turn, the State Board complains that the Petitioners are merely attempting “an improper ‘end-run’ around the regulation [Indiana Administrative Code title 50, rule 5.1-6-9] limiting depreciation.” (Resp’t Br. at 20 (citation omitted).)
    While the Court ultimately agrees with the State Board in result, it does not agree with its reasoning. Indeed, both parties have spent a great deal of time and paper arguing about how the Petitioners’ organizational structure should affect their assessment, but they have “skirted” the real issue in this case: whether a public utility company may file a consolidated return in the first place.
    Public utilities are subject to the centralized assessment scheme contained within Indiana Code § 6-1.1-8. Consequently, public utility companies do not file “property tax returns” in the traditional sense. Rather, during the years at issue, they filed “statements of value” with both the State Board and the appropriate local assessing authorities. See Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-8-19 (West 1999) (amended 2002); Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-8-23 (West 1999) (amended 2002). After these statements were filed, the appropriate township assessors determined the assessed value of each public utility’s fixed property, while the State Board determined the assessed value of the public utlility’s distributable property. See Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-8-24 (West 1999) (amended 2002); Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-8-9 (West 2004); Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-8-25 (West 1999) (amended 2002); A.I.C. § 6-1.1-8-9(b). Then, on or before June 1st of each year, the State Board issued a tentative valuation of each public utility’s overall property. See Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-8-26, -28 (West 1999) (amended 2002).
    Indiana Code § 6-1.1-8 is completely silent with respect to the filing of consolidated returns by public utilities, as are the administrative regulations applicable to public utility assessment. See Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 5.1-6 (1996). This Court has often said that what a statute or regulation does not say is just as important as what it does say. See LeSea Broad. Corp. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 525 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1988). See also Western Select Prop. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 639 N.E.2d 1068, 1073 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1994) (stating that rules of statutory construction also apply to administrative rules and regulations). This leads the Court to the conclusion that the statutes and regulations relating to public utility assessment were drafted with the intent that public utilities cannot file consolidated returns. See footnote
     As mentioned earlier, the Petitioners’ entire argument is based on the fact that because three other public utilities were allowed to file consolidated returns, the Petitioners, likewise, are entitled to such a filing. The fact that those other public utilities filed consolidated returns, however, will be of no consequence to the treatment the Petitioners seek. Indeed, there is no sound reason to give the Petitioners the benefit of the State Board’s misinterpretation and misapplication of the law simply because someone else may have previously benefited from the same mistake; to do so would only exacerbate the inequity for everyone else.

[Indiana Code § 6-1.1-8] is designed to provide special rules for the assessment and taxation of public utility company property. If a provision of [chapter 8] conflicts with any provision of another chapter of [article 1.1], the provision of this chapter controls with respect to the assessment and taxation of public utility company property.

Ind. Code Ann. § 6-1.1-8-43 (West 2004).