The data contained in these searches comes directly from each county, so the format in the database may vary. If you search is not yielding results, try a partial search by using just the street name without direction or type. For example, if the address is " Main St.
- Marion County, Ohio: Online Auditor - Home?
- property search sussex county delaware.
You can also try using part of your last name instead of your full first and last name. Search IN.
May 12222 Operating Referendum
Find an IN. Top FAQs. Code Ann. Consequently, IRC claims that it is simply impossible for its and refund claims to be "untimely. See A.
Public Records Search
Nevertheless, Chapter 15, titled "Procedures for Review and Appeal of Assessment and Correction of Errors," provides no information as to how to file that claim. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, N. See also Roehl Transp. See footnote IRC's taxes resulting from the and assessments were first due on May 10, , and May 10, See IRC, slip op. Thus, when IRC filed its claims for refund for the and tax years on November 12, , they were outside the statutorily imposed three-year time limit and were, therefore, properly denied.
In essence, what IRC is really arguing for is equitable relief: it believes it is unreasonable to impose a limitation of any period of time to recover a property tax refund in this case because the appeal has "drag[ged] on for more than three years. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court did not err in affirming the Indiana Board's determination denying IRC property tax refunds for tax years and IRC appealed the assessment  of the tennis court area of these improvements.
IRC did not appeal the assessment of the lobby and locker room areas. The Court remanded for a new determination of the proper use type for the tennis court area.
Accordingly, the Indiana Board was prohibited by law from changing the depreciation adjustment applicable to the lobby and locker room areas. IRC properly raised this issue in its [initial appeal to] this Court. See footnote However, this Court did not address or resolve the issue in its opinion. Thus, on rehearing, IRC is entitled to have this issue addressed by the Court.
The Court agrees. Therefore, the Court concludes that IRC has carried its burden to show that the State Board abused its discretion by applying the wrong model in assessing the tennis facility.
Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. State Bd. 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. In addition, the Court stated: [IRC] is reminded that, on remand, it bears the burden of going forward with probative evidence. Upon remand the state board of tax commissioners may take action only on those issues specified in the decision of the tax court. This Court remanded IRC's assessment with respect to the tennis court area of the facility only.
Marion county tax return
Thus, it was improper for the Indiana Board to change the amount of physical depreciation applied to the lobby and locker rooms of the facility. Resp't Resp. The Court therefore REMANDS those issues to the Indiana Board to instruct the local assessing officials to award IRC's improvement with the proper amount of physical depreciation effective with the assessment, consistent with this opinion. DeVoe B. Keith Shake Michael R. See King Indus.
Marion County, KY
The base rate reductions, known as "kit building adjustments," were to account for the low-cost of, and economical quality of material used in, these buildings. State Board Instructional Bulletin provided guidance to assessors in determining which buildings qualified for the reduction. See Componx, Inc. See Cert. See Resp't Br.