Test

Testing 123 Link

Test

Testing 123 Link

Header

[TAX] Eric S. Morris v. Hamilton County Assessor, No. 20T-TA-00019

By Courts

Thursday, July 29, 2021 10:00am to 12:00pm

[TAX] Eric S. Morris v. Hamilton County Assessor, No. 20T-TA-00019
Court of Appeals of Indiana Courtroom View map

Statehouse, Room 413, Indianapolis, Indiana

View map Add to calendar

On May 3, 2019, the Petitioner, Eric S. Morris, filed three petitions for review with the Indiana Board of Tax Review claiming that he was entitled to relief for the 2016 through 2019 tax years pursuant to the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act.  In his petitions, Morris alleged that with respect to the residents of the unincorporated portion of Clay Township, the Clay Township Assessor had made incorrect and illegal appropriations, failed to account for the revenues in Fire Fund 1111, and had violated certain Interlocal Agreements between itself and the City of Carmel.

The Respondent, the Hamilton County Assessor, subsequently moved to dismiss Morris’s appeals, claiming that the Indiana Board did not have the authority to hear them.  On November 19, 2020, after conducting a telephonic hearing, the Indiana Board issued its final determination.  In its final determination, the Indiana Board found that it lacked the authority to address Morris’s claims because he sought relief only under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act and he had failed to ask for any specific individual relief.

On December 21, 2020, Morris initiated a small tax case, claiming that the Indiana Board’s final determination should be reversed because it was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to several laws.  More specifically, Morris claims that the Indiana Board’s final determination should be reversed because after holding an administrative hearing, it switched course by concluding that it lacked the authority to address his claims even though the controlling law had not changed.  Morris also claims that the Indiana Board’s finding that he sought an advisory opinion because he failed to ask the Indiana Board for specific individual relief is not supported by substantial evidence.

 

Event Details