Camelot Company, LLC v. Bartholomew County Assessor

ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER: ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT:
MELISSA G. MICHIE MARILYN S. MEIGHEN
TAX CONSULTANTS, INC. ATTORNEY AT LAW FILED
Columbus, IN Carmel, IN Dec 06 2023, 1:13 pm

BRIAN A. CUSIMANO CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
ATTORNEY AT LAW Court of Appeals
and Tax Court

Indianapolis, IN

IN THE
INDIANA TAX COURT

CAMELOT COMPANY, LLC, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Cause No. 21T-TA-00011
)
BARTHOLOMEW COUNTY ASSESSOR, )
)
Respondent. )

ON APPEAL FROM A FINAL DETERMINATION OF
THE INDIANA BOARD OF TAX REVIEW

FOR PUBLICATION
December 6, 2023

ROBB, Senior J.

Camelot Company, LLC challenges the Indiana Board of Tax Review’s final

determination that found its property tax appeal for the 2018 tax year was not timely

filed. While the Court reverses that discrete finding, it nonetheless affirms the Indiana

Board’s ultimate conclusion that Camelot is not entitled to a change in its 2018 land

assessment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Camelot owns a convenience store and gas station, and the 44,627 square feet

of land upon which they are located, in Columbus, Indiana. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 23.)

For the 2017 assessment year, Camelot’s land was assigned a value of $803,300.

(See Cert. Admin. R. at 23.)

In February of 2018, the Bartholomew County Property Tax Assessment Board

of Appeals (“PTABOA”) conducted a meeting where, along with other items of business,

it voted to approve the 2018 Bartholomew County land order. (See Cert. Admin. R. at

15.) That land order, among other things, changed the classification assigned to

Camelot’s land and increased its base rate value from $18 per square foot to $19 per

square foot. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 21, 23, 25, 65.) Consequently, on June 15,

2018, the Assessor mailed to Camelot a Form 11 Notice of Assessment indicating that

effective with the January 1, 2018, assessment date, the value of Camelot’s land had

increased to $847,900. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 23, 65.)

On September 3, 2019, Camelot filed an appeal seeking to correct “[a] clerical,

mathematical, or typographical mistake.” (See Cert. Admin. R. at 3-4.) More

specifically, Camelot alleged that its land was valued using the wrong land order:

The land order increasing the subject [property’s] primary land base
rate to $19 per sq. ft. was not approved by [the] PTABOA until
February 6, 2018 and this assessment is as of January 1, 2018,
therefore the [property’s] primary land base rate of $19 per sq. ft. is
in error. The 2018 primary land base rate [should be] $18.

(Cert. Admin. R. at 4.) The PTABOA conducted a hearing on the appeal and denied

Camelot’s request for relief. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 5-7, 19.)

Camelot sought review of the PTABOA’s decision with the Indiana Board,

2
electing to have its appeal heard as a small claims case. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at

1-2.) On November 10, 2020, the Indiana Board conducted a hearing on Camelot’s

appeal. (Cert. Admin. R. at 84.) During that hearing, Camelot again argued that

because the new land order had not been approved until February of 2018, the base

rates set forth therein could not be used to value its land as of the January 1, 2018,

assessment date. (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 86-88, 94, 96-98.) This time, however,

Camelot suggested that its land value for the 2018 tax year should be $8.00 per square

foot – the value purportedly indicated under Bartholomew County’s 2011 land order.

(See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 2, 86-88, 94, 96-98.)

In response, the Assessor asserted that Camelot was not entitled to any relief

because its appeal was untimely: the “error” it was complaining about, i.e., whether the

correct land order (and thus the correct base rate) was used to value its land involved a

subjective issue, not an objective one and, as a result, the appeal had to be filed within

45 days of the Form 11 Notice. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 86, 89-91.) Alternatively, the

Assessor argued, it was appropriate for her to use the land order that was approved in

February of 2018 to value Camelot’s land as of January 1, 2018. (See Cert. Admin. R.

at 89-91.)

On February 5, 2021, the Indiana Board issued a final determination in the

matter. In it, the Indiana Board explained that under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1.1,

taxpayers like Camelot were subject to different filing deadlines for different types of

appeals: appeals challenging the assessed value of property were to be filed

(generally) within 45 days of notice of the assessment whereas appeals challenging

clerical, mathematical, or typographical errors could be filed anytime within three years

3
after the taxes on the property were first due. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 82 ¶ 15.) The

Indiana Board found that Camelot’s appeal was untimely filed because even though it

“checked the box . . . to indicate it was alleging a clerical, mathematical, or

typographical mistake,” it was actually challenging the assessed value of its property.

(Cert. Admin. R. at 82 ¶¶ 16-17 (explaining that “simply calling something a clerical,

mathematical, or typographical mistake does not make it so” and therefore Camelot

should have filed its appeal within 45 days of the June 15, 2018, issuance of the

Assessor’s Form 11 notice).) And to the extent it was challenging the assessed value of

its property, the Indiana Board continued,

Camelot did not meet its burden[ of proof]. Its evidence focused
solely on an irrelevant question: whether the Assessor could apply
base rates that the PTABOA did not approve until February 6,
2018[,] to assess Camelot’s property [as of] January 1, 2018. A
taxpayer challenging the assessed value of its property generally
cannot meet its burden by simply contesting the methodology used
to compute the assessment. Instead, it must offer evidence that
complies with generally accepted appraisal principles to show the
property’s market value-in-use. It therefore does not matter which
base rates the Assessor used in computing Camelot’s assessment.
Camelot needed to offer individualized market-based evidence to its
property’s actual market value-in-use. Because Camelot did not
even try to do so, it failed to make a prima facie case for changing
the assessment.

(Cert. Admin. R. at 82-83 ¶ 19 (internal citation omitted) (emphasis added).) As a result,

the Indiana Board ordered “no change” to Camelot’s 2018 land assessment of

$847,900. (Cert. Admin. R. at 83 ¶ 20.)

Camelot initiated an original tax appeal on March 19, 2021, and after the parties

4
briefing was complete, the Court conducted an oral argument. 1 Additional facts will be

supplied when necessary.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The party seeking to reverse an Indiana Board final determination bears the

burden of demonstrating its invalidity. Hatke v. Potter, 173 N.E.3d 728, 729 (Ind. Tax

Ct. 2021). Thus, to prevail in its appeal, Camelot must demonstrate to the Court that

the Indiana Board’s final determination is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or

otherwise not in accordance with law; contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or

immunity; in excess of or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations; without

observance of the procedure required by law; or unsupported by substantial or reliable

evidence. See IND. CODE § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (2023).

LAW

Deadlines for Filing an Appeal

When Camelot filed its appeal with the PTABOA in 2019, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-

15-1.1(a) provided that a taxpayer could initiate a real property assessment appeal by

filing a written notice, on a form designated by the Department of Local Government

Finance (“DLGF”), with the appropriate township or county assessor. See IND. CODE §

6-1.1-15-1.1(a) (2019). (See also Cert. Admin. R. at 3-4 (Camelot’s “Notice to Initiate

An Appeal” (“Form 130”)).) The appeal could raise any claim of error related to:

(1) The assessed value of the property[;]

1
On May 10, 2021, upon the parties’ joint motion, the Court ordered the following three other
cases to be consolidated with Camelot’s: Coutar Remainder III, LLC v. Bartholomew Cnty.
Assessor, Cause No. 21T-TA-00009; Centra Credit Union v. Bartholomew Cnty. Assessor,
Cause No. 21T-TA-00010; and Piotrowski BK #6253, LLC v. Bartholomew Cnty. Assessor,
Cause No. 21T-TA-000012. All four cases involve the same issues and present no material
factual differences.
5
(2) The assessment was against the wrong person[;]

(3) The approval, denial, or omission of a deduction, credit,
exemption, abatement, or tax cap[;]

(4) A clerical, mathematical, or typographical mistake[;]

(5) The description of the real property[; and]

(6) The legality or constitutionality of a property tax or assessment.

I.C. § 6-1.1-15-1.1(a)(1)-(6). 2

The taxpayer’s deadline for filing its appeal depended on the type of error it

raised. Indeed, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1.1 provided that if the taxpayer appealed an

assessment made before January 1, 2019, on the basis that there was an error in the

assessed value of the property, the appeal was to be filed any time after the assessing

official’s action, but not later than the earlier of:

(A) forty-five (45) days after the date on which the notice of
assessment is mailed by the county; or

(B) forty-five (45) days after the date on which the tax statement is
mailed by the county treasurer, regardless of whether the
assessing official changes the taxpayer’s assessment.

I.C. § 6-1.1-15-1.1(b)(1). “If, however, the taxpayer appealed his assessment based on

one or more of the objective errors listed under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1.1(a)(2)-(6),

the appeal must be filed not later than three years after the taxes were first due.”

Bushmann, LLC v. Bartholomew Cnty. Assessor, 187 N.E.3d 355, 357 (Ind. Tax Ct.

2022).

2
The statute provides certain exceptions to this rule. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-1.1(e), (h)
(2019). None of those exceptions, however, apply in this case.
6
Valuing Land

For purposes of collecting ad valorem property taxes, Indiana real property is

assessed and valued annually. See IND. CODE §§ 6-1.1-1-2, -2-1.5(a)(2) (2018).

Indiana’s annual assessment date is January 1st. 3 I.C. § 6-1.1-2-1.5(a)(2).

The values, or rates, that are to be used in assessing land within each county’s

townships are set forth in what is commonly known as a “land order.” See, e.g., REAL

PROPERTY ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES FOR 2011 (“Guidelines”) (incorporated by reference

at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.4-1-2(c) (2011) (amended 2020)), Ch. 2. With respect to those

rates, Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-13.6 explains that

(a) The county assessor shall determine the[m for] all classes of
commercial, industrial, and residential land (including farm
homesites) in the county using guidelines determined by the [DLGF].
The assessor determining the values of land shall submit the values
to the county property tax assessment board of appeals [(“ptaboa”)]
by the dates specified in the county’s reassessment plan under
[Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-4.2].

(b) If the county assessor fails to determine land values under
subsection (a) before the deadlines in the county’s reassessment
plan under [Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-4.2], the county [ptaboa] shall
determine the values. If the county [ptaboa] fails to determine the
values before the land values become effective, the department of
local government finance shall determine the values.

IND. CODE § 6-1.1-4-13.6 (2018). As referenced in this statute, each county is statutorily

required to prepare and implement a reassessment plan. A reassessment plan, which

outlines a county’s timeline for assessing all the parcels within its jurisdiction during

3
Prior to 2016, Indiana’s annual assessment date was March 1st. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-2-
1.5(a)(1) (2018).

7
every four-year reassessment cycle, is governed by Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-4.2:

(a) The county assessor of each county shall, before July 1, 2013,
and before May 1 of every fourth year thereafter, prepare and
submit to the [DLGF] a reassessment plan for the county. The
following apply to a reassessment plan prepared and submitted
under this section:

(1) The reassessment plan is subject to approval by the
[DLGF]. The [DLGF] shall complete its review and
approval of the reassessment plan before:

(A) March 1, 2015; and

(B) January 1 of each subsequent year that follows a
year in which the reassessment plan is submitted by
the county.

(2) The [DLGF] shall determine the classes of real property
to be used for purposes of this section.

(3) Except as provided in subsection (b), the reassessment
plan must divide all parcels of real property in the county into
four (4) different groups of parcels. Each group of parcels
must contain approximately twenty-five percent (25%) of the
parcels within each class of real property in the county.
(4) Except as provided in subsection (b), all real property in
each group of parcels shall be reassessed under the
county's reassessment plan once during each four (4) year
cycle.

(5) The reassessment of a group of parcels in a particular
class of real property shall begin on May 1 of a year.

(6) The reassessment of parcels:

(A) must include a physical inspection of each parcel
of real property in the group of parcels that is being
reassessed; and

(B) shall be completed on or before January 1 of the
year after the year in which the reassessment of the
group of parcels begins.

8
(7) For real property included in a group of parcels that is
reassessed, the reassessment is the basis for taxes payable
in the year following the year in which the reassessment is to
be completed.

(8) The reassessment plan must specify the dates by which
the assessor must submit land values under section 13.6 of
this chapter to the county [ptaboa].

(9) Subject to review and approval by the [DLGF], the county
assessor may modify the reassessment plan.

(b) A county may submit a reassessment plan that provides for
reassessing more than twenty-five percent (25%) of all parcels of
real property in the county in a particular year. A plan may
provide that all parcels are to be reassessed in one (1) year.
However, a plan must cover a four (4) year period. All real
property in each group of parcels shall be reassessed under the
county's reassessment plan once during each reassessment
cycle.

(c) The reassessment of the first group of parcels under a county's
reassessment plan shall begin on July 1, 2014, and shall be
completed on or before January 1, 2015.

(d) The [DLGF] may adopt rules to govern the reassessment of
property under county reassessment plans.

IND. CODE § 6-1.1-4-4.2 (2018) (amended 2023).

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Camelot argues that the Indiana Board erred in determining that its

appeal was untimely. (See Pet’r Br. at 4-6.) As a result of this error, Camelot

continues, the Indiana Board failed to address its argument that the Bartholomew

County land order approved by the PTABOA in February of 2018 could not be used to

value Camelot’s land as of the January 1, 2018, assessment date. (See Pet’r Br. at 6-7;

Oral Arg. Tr. at 5-6.)

9
1. Was Camelot’s Appeal Timely Filed?

Camelot first argues on appeal that given the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision

in Muir Woods Section One Association, Inc. v. O’Connor, 172 N.E.3d 1205 (Ind. 2021),

the Indiana Board erred in determining that Camelot’s appeal was untimely filed. (See

Pet’r Br. at 4-6.) Camelot is correct.

In Muir Woods, the Indiana Supreme Court evaluated whether the claim that an

assessor failed to apply a certain base rate discount when calculating the assessed

value of common area land was an objective error that could be raised under the now

defunct Form 133 correction of error process. See Muir Woods Section One Ass’n, Inc.

v. O’Connor, 172 N.E.3d 1205, 1206 (Ind. 2021). The Indiana Supreme Court

explained that when the Form 133 appeal process was in use, it “could only be used to

remedy ‘errors which can be corrected without resort to subjective judgment and

according to objective standards.’” Id. at 1207 (quoting Muir Woods, Inc. v. O’Connor,

36 N.E.3d 1208, 1213 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015), review denied). The Indiana Supreme Court

further explained that while an assessor’s initial determination of a base rate was

inherently subjective, the application of the discount factor as prescribed in the land

order was not. Id. Consequently, the Indiana Supreme Court found that the use of the

Form 133 correction of error process was proper because it was used to “challeng[e]

the objective application of a prescribed discount rate to an already-determined base

rate.” Id. at 1208.

In this case, similar to the appeal in Muir Woods, the question presented for

resolution involves an objective application of a land order. Indeed, during the

administrative process, Camelot claimed its land assessment resulted from a “clerical,

10
mathematical, or typographical error” because the Assessor did not use the proper land

order (and thus an improper base rate) to value its land for the 2018 assessment year.

(See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 1-4, 86, 88, 90, 93-94.) The question whether the proper

land order was used is not an inherently subjective one. See, e.g., Square 74 Assocs.

LLC, v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 138 N.E.3d 336, 340 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 2019) (providing that

objective errors are errors capable of correction without resort to subjective judgment);

Rinker Boat Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 722 N.E.2d 919, 922 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1999)

(explaining that objective errors involve uncomplicated true or false findings of fact).

Classifying Camelot’s appeal as one that challenges an objective error is critical

due to the differing time limitations for appealing an objective error versus a subjective

error. See Square 74 Assocs., 138 N.E.3d at 340-46 (affirming the Indiana Board’s

dismissal of Form 133 correction of error appeals as untimely because they sought to

correct subjective errors); Pulte Homes of Indiana, LLC v. Hendricks Cnty. Assessor, 42

N.E.3d 590, 593-96 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (explaining that the Form 133 correction of error

appeal procedure is reserved for the correction of objective errors only), review

denied; Hatcher v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 561 N.E.2d 852, 853-58 (Ind. Tax Ct.

1990) (explaining that errors susceptible to correction under the Form 133 correction of

error appeal procedure are objective errors, not errors that require subjective

judgments). Prior to 2017, taxpayers could file a Form 133 correction of error appeal,

taking advantage of its extended statute of limitations under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-

12, to correct the following objective errors in assessments:

(1) The description of the real property was in error[;]

(2) The assessment was against the wrong person[;]

11
(3) Taxes on the same property were charged more than one (1)
time in the same year[;]

(4) There was a mathematical error in computing the taxes or
penalties on the taxes[;]

(5) There was an error in carrying delinquent taxes forward from one
(1) tax duplicate to another[;]

(6) The taxes, as a matter of law, were illegal[;]

(7) There was a mathematical error in computing an assessment[;
and]

(8) Through an error or omission by any state or county officer, the
taxpayer was not given:

(A) the proper credit under IC 6-1.1-20.6-7.5 for property
taxes imposed for an assessment date after January 15,
2011;

(B) any other credit permitted by law;

(C) an exemption permitted by law; or

(D) a deduction permitted by law.

IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-12(a) (2017) (repealed 2017). See also Hutcherson v. Ward, 2

N.E.3d 138, 142 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013) (explaining that as of 2013, the Form 133

correction of error appeal procedure was not restricted to a three-year time limitation

given the repeal of 50 IAC 4.2-3-12).

In 2017, the Legislature passed Senate Enrolled Act No. 386, which revised the

property assessment appeal process by (1) repealing Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1 that

required the use of the former Form 130 to challenge subjective errors in assessments,

(2) repealing Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-12 that required the use of a Form 133 to

challenge objective errors in assessments, (3) adopting Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1.1

that required the use of a single form to challenge both subjective and objective errors

12
in assessments (i.e., the revised Form 130), and (4) adding a three-year statute of

limitations for filing a correction of error appeal. See IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-1 (2017)

(repealed 2017); I.C. § 6-1.1-15-12; IND. CODE § 6-1.1-15-1.1 (2017) (amended 2019);

Pub. L. No. 232-2017. But in doing so, the Legislature did not eliminate the long-

standing distinction between objective and subjective errors for purposes of the

correction of error appeal procedure. Instead, as just mentioned, taxpayers now use

just one form, the revised Form 130, to challenge both subjective errors in their

assessments (under Section II “Reason for Appeal of Current Year’s Assessment”) and

objective errors in their assessments (under Section III “Correction of Error Per IC 6-1.1-

15-1.1(a) and (b)”). (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 3-4.) For the most part, the objective

errors enumerated in Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1.1(a)(2)-(6) are the same types of errors

formerly listed under Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-12. Compare I.C. § 6-1.1-15-1.1(a)(2)-(6)

(describing what errors could be corrected under the revised Form 130 correction of

error appeal procedure) with I.C. § 6-1.1-15-12(a) (describing what errors could be

corrected under the Form 133 appeal procedure).

Camelot’s appeal raised the objective error whether the Assessor used the

proper land order (and thus the proper base rate) to determine the assessed value of its

land. There is no dispute that Camelot’s appeal was initiated using the revised Form

130 correction of error appeal procedure. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 3-4.) There is also

no dispute that Camelot filed its appeal for a correction of error within three years of

when the taxes on its 2018 assessment was first due. (See Cert. Admin. R. at 3-4, 82 ¶

16.) Accordingly, the Indiana Board erred in finding that Camelot’s appeal was not

timely filed.

13
2. Was it Proper to Use the Land Values Submitted to the PTABOA on February 6,
2018, To Assess Camelot’s Property for the 2018 Tax Year?

Because the Indiana Board found that Camelot’s appeal was untimely, it did not

address Camelot’s claim that the Assessor used the wrong land order to value its land.

(See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R. at 82 ¶ 19 (explaining that Camelot “focused solely on an

irrelevant question: whether the Assessor could apply base rates that the PTABOA did

not approve until February 6, 2018[,] to assess Camelot’s property for January 1,

2018”).) Now, on appeal, Camelot asks the Court to resolve the issue. 4 (See Pet’r Br.

at 7; Oral Arg. Tr. at 17-19, 30-31.)

Camelot argues that the land order that was approved by the PTABOA in

February of 2018 could not be used to value its land as of the January 1, 2018,

assessment date. (Pet’r Reply Br. at 2.) As support for its argument, Camelot points to

the “before the land values become effective” language in Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-

13.6(b) as clearly indicating that the base rates set forth in a land order have an

effective date and therefore can only be applied once they are, in fact, effective. (See,

e.g., Pet’r Br. at 7; Pet’r Reply Br. at 2-3; Oral Arg. Tr. at 22-24.) Acknowledging that

the statute is silent as to when land values become effective, Camelot turns to the rule

of statutory construction that instructs statutory language is generally given prospective

4
The parties assert that it is proper for the Court to decide this issue as opposed to remanding
it to the Indiana Board. (See Oral Arg. Tr. at 6-9, 30-31, 60-64, 69-70 (indicating that the parties
agree that although the Indiana Board did not resolve the issue, it made the findings of fact
necessary to resolve the issue).) The Court agrees. See Cedar Lake Conf. Ass’n v. Lake Cnty.
Prop. Tax Assessment Bd. of Appeals, 887 N.E.2d 205, 207 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2008) (explaining that
this Court defers to the Indiana Board’s factual findings when they are supported by substantial
evidence but reviews any questions of law that arise from the Indiana Board’s factual findings
de novo), review denied.

14
effect only. (See Pet’r Reply Br. at 4; Oral Arg. Tr. at 36-37.) Relying on this rule,

Camelot concludes that because the PTABOA did not approve the land values at issue

until February 6, 2018, those values could only be used to value land after that date and

not before. (See Pet’r Reply Br. at 4; Oral Arg. Tr. at 36-37.) The Court does not find

Camelot’s argument persuasive for the following reasons.

First, to the extent Camelot has hinged its argument on the PTABOA’s approval

date of February 6, 2018, nothing in either Indiana Code § 6-1.1-4-13.6 or § 6-1.1-4-4.2

require the PTABOA to “approve” the values that were presented to it. See I.C. §§ 6-

1.1-4-4.2, -13.6. Instead, all that was statutorily required was that the Assessor submit

her land values to the PTABOA by the date specified in the county’s reassessment plan

that had been approved by the DLGF. See I.C. §§ 6-1.1-4-4.2(a)(8), -13.6(a). See also

DeKalb Cnty. E. Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 930 N.E.2d 1257, 1260

(Ind. Tax Ct. 2010) (stating that when the language of a statute is clear and

unambiguous, the meaning of statute may not be expanded or contracted by reading

into it language that is not there). The evidence contained in the certified administrative

record demonstrates that Bartholomew County’s 2015-2018 reassessment plan, as

approved by the DLGF, required the Assessor to submit her land values to the PTABOA

“during the 4th year” of that reassessment cycle (i.e., 2018). (See, e.g., Cert. Admin. R.

at 37-38, 42-43, 47-51.) Camelot acknowledges that the Assessor submitted her land

values to the PTABOA in accordance with that reassessment plan. (See Pet’r Reply Br.

at 3; Oral Arg. Tr. at 26.)

Second, the “before the land values become effective” language to which

Camelot points comes into play only upon the assessing official’s failure to submit land

15
values to a ptaboa by the deadline specified in the county’s reassessment plan. See

I.C. § 6-1.1-4-13.6(b). As just explained, however, that was not case here. Supra.

Nonetheless, when reading that “effective” language within the context of the entire

provision of which it is a part, the Legislature simply meant that if both the county

assessor and the county ptaboa fail to determine the land values that are to be used in

a particular assessment year, the DLGF shall step in and determine the values for

them. 5 See, e.g., Crown Prop. Grp., LLC v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 135 N.E.3d

671, 677 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019) (explaining that when statutory language is clear and

unambiguous, it is the duty of this Court to give effect to the plain meaning of the

5
To the extent Camelot has concluded that for purposes of the January 1, 2018, assessment,
the county land order should have been submitted to the PTABOA before that date, (see Pet’r
Br. at 7; Pet’r Reply Br. at 4; Oral Arg. Tr. at 24), its argument ignores the realities of how
Indiana’s assessment process works. Indeed, while Indiana’s annual assessment date is
January 1, see I.C. § 6-1.1-2-1.5(a)(2), that does not mean that assessments are actually
completed and finalized on that date. For example, when formulating land values to be used in
a given assessment year, assessing officials are to analyze and rely on data from sales
transactions that have occurred through and including December 31 of the previous year
calendar year. See 2011 REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL (“2011 Manual”) (incorporated
by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN. CODE 2.4-1-2 (2011) (amended 2020)) at 2; 2021 REAL
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT MANUAL (“2021 Manual”) (incorporated by reference at 50 IND. ADMIN.
CODE 2.4-1-2 (2020)) at 2. See also Osolo Twp. v. Elkhart Maple Lane Assocs., L.P., 789
N.E.2d 109, 112 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003) (explaining that Indiana’s duly promulgated property
assessment regulations have the force of law). Thus, it is not possible for assessing officials to
analyze all applicable sales data, determine land values, submit them to the ptaboa, reassess
overall assessment valuations using those land values, update corresponding record cards, and
provide notice to taxpayers of changes to assessments between December 31 and January 2.
Accordingly, as Camelot concedes, the process by which land values and land orders are
determined and applied must be very fluid and “flexible.” (See Oral Arg. Tr. at 66-67.) Indiana’s
Assessment Manual provides that flexibility by specifying that property assessments are to
reflect a valuation “as of” the January 1st date. See 2011 Manual at 2. See also Marion Cnty.
Assessor v. Simon DeBartolo Grp., L.P., 52 N.E.3d 65, 69-70 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2016)
(acknowledging that given Indiana’s statutory tax system, “time-gaps” necessarily occur
between the valuation, assessment, and appeal dates and deadlines). Here, Camelot has not
presented any evidence demonstrating that its 2018 land assessment was computed using
inappropriate land sales data.

16
statute; unambiguous statutes must be read to mean what they plainly express, and

their plain meanings may not be enlarged or restricted).

Camelot has not demonstrated to the Court that Indiana Code §§ 6-1.1-4-4.2 and

-13.6 prohibited the Assessor from using the Bartholomew County land order that was

“approved” by the PTABOA in February of 2018 to value its land as of the January 1,

2018, assessment date. Accordingly, Camelot has not demonstrated that it is entitled to

a change in its land assessment for that tax year.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court REVERSES the Indiana Board’s

determination that Camelot’s appeal was not timely filed. Nonetheless, the Court

AFFIRMS the Indiana Board’s ultimate determination that Camelot is not entitled to a

change in its 2018 land assessment.

17