Peters v. Garoffolo

6 Citing cases

  1. Nova Tube Ind. II LLC v. Clark Cnty. Assessor

    101 N.E.3d 887 (Ind. T.C. 2018)   Cited 2 times
    Defining an "abuse of discretion"

    For purposes of Indiana Code § 6–1.1–15–17.2, the term "burden of proof" refers to the burden of production (i.e.," ‘[a] party's duty to introduce enough evidence on an issue to have the issue decided by the fact-finder, rather than decided against [it] in a peremptory ruling’ "). See Peters v. Garoffolo, 32 N.E.3d 847, 852 n.6 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (citations omitted). Indeed, it is well-established that when a taxpayer challenges the accuracy of an assessment, he likewise must show that his evidence reflects his property's market value-in use as of the appropriate valuation date.

  2. Marion Cnty. Assessor v. Kohl's Ind., LP

    179 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. T.C. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    As just explained, to establish the comparability of the subject property to the Kohl's department stores in the Analysis, the Assessor needed to present evidence that explained the characteristics of the subject property, how those characteristics related to those of the purportedly comparable properties, and how any differences between the properties affected their relative values. See, e.g., Peters v. Garoffolo, 32 N.E.3d 847, 853 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015). See also, e.g., I.C. § 6-1.1-15-18 (providing that "preference shall be given to comparable properties that are located in the same taxing district or within two (2) miles of a boundary of the taxing district").

  3. Grant Cnty. Assessor v. Ballinger

    157 N.E.3d 34 (Ind. T.C. 2020)   Cited 1 times

    The Court previously has explained that the term "burden of proof" incorporates two burdens: the burden of persuasion, which remains with the same party throughout a litigation, and the burden of production, i.e., the duty to produce evidence, which may shift from party to party during the course of a litigation. Peters v. Garoffolo, 32 N.E.3d 847, 852 n.6 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015). Therefore, the Indiana Board's observations that the Assessor had not produced evidence to support the assessment may merely have indicated that the burden to produce evidence shifted to the Assessor because the Indiana Board found the Ballingers made a prima facie case by providing sufficient evidence to establish their claim.

  4. Von Erdmannsdorff v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue

    82 N.E.3d 952 (Ind. T.C. 2017)

    Moreover, there is no dispute that Von's Shops rented VHS tapes and DVDs and sold comic books, new/used books, music in vinyl and CD formats, beads, greeting cards, rocks, VHS tapes, DVDs, guitar strings, and several other items. At first blush, therefore, the name of the BizStats category itself, "sole proprietorship sporting goods-hobby-book-music store," suggests that it includes businesses like Von's Shops. Its very name, however, also suggests that it includes businesses dissimilar to Von's Shops (i.e., sporting goods stores) and excludes others that are similar (i.e., video rental stores). Consequently, additional details regarding the actual make-up of the businesses in the BizStats category are needed to ascertain whether any of these facial differences may have an impact on the reliability of the Department's COGS estimates. See, e.g., Peters v. Garoffolo, 32 N.E.3d 847, 853 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015) (stating that to establish the comparability of real property, the proponent of the evidence must explain the characteristics of the subject property, how those characteristics relate to those of the purportedly comparable properties, and how any differences between the properties affected their relative values).During the trial, one of the Department's witnesses explained that BizStats classifies businesses consistent with the six-digit North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code contained on taxpayers' federal income tax returns.

  5. Crystal Flash Petroleum, LLC v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue

    45 N.E.3d 882 (Ind. T.C. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    See RAC II, 963 N.E.2d at 467 ; Aztec Partners, LLC v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 35 N.E.3d 320, 323–24 (Ind.Tax Ct.2015) ; Miller Pipeline, 995 N.E.2d at 734 n. 1. The burden of persuasion never shifts, but remains with Crystal Flash throughout. See, e.g., Peters v. Garoffolo, 32 N.E.3d 847, 852 n. 6 (Ind. Tax Ct.2015).1. Ice Production Equipment

  6. Marion Cnty. Assessor v. Gateway Arthur, Inc.

    45 N.E.3d 876 (Ind. T.C. 2015)   Cited 2 times
    Affirming the Indiana Board's rejection of a property's sales price as indicative of its actual value when that property was included in a portfolio sale and the evidence failed to reveal whether the allocated sales price encompassed more than the "sticks and bricks"

    (See Pet'r Br. at 2–3.) See alsoPeters v. Garoffolo, 32 N.E.3d 847, 852 n. 6 (Ind.Tax Ct.2015) (explaining the difference between the burden of persuasion and the burden of proof). The Court, however, need not resolve this issue to dispose of the case.