Brand new Legal try served with the next issues toward desire: Whether the analysis of Majestic Star’s riverboat once the real property violates Article ten, § one of the Indiana Structure;
Lawyer Getting PETITIONER: Attorneys To own RESPONDENT: TIMOTHY D. HERNLY STEVE CARTER RICHARD J. DEAHL Attorney Standard Out of INDIANA BARNES & THORNBURG Indianapolis, From inside the South Fold, Within the LINDA We. VILLEGAS DEPUTY Attorney Standard Indianapolis, From inside the ______________________________________________________________________ Regarding INDIANA Tax Judge The brand new Majestic Celebrity Gambling establishment, LLC, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) End up in Zero. 71T10-0305-TA-twenty four BOOKER BLUMENBURG, JR., ) TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR From CALUMET ) TOWNSHIP, River County, INDIANA, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________________________________________________
The Regal Superstar Local casino, LLC (Regal Star) appeals the fresh Indiana Panel away from Income tax Review’s (Indiana Panel) finally dedication valuing its casino riverboat (riverboat) on the February step one, 1997 evaluation go out
Things And Procedural Background Majestic Star is a keen Indiana limited liability providers you to works a gambling establishment riverboat – this new Regal Star II – on the Lake Michigan. The latest Majestic Superstar II, circulated into the October, 1997, try harbored during the Buffington Harbor during the Gary, Indiana. This new Majestic Star II shares a beneficial docking pavilion which have another riverboat, this new Trump Gambling enterprise. Given that Majestic Star II was being centered, Regal Star hired a smaller sized riverboat away from a third-team to make use of with its process. Find footnote That it less riverboat, brand new Majestic Star We, are manufactured in 1972 along with a certified holding capacity regarding step 1,900 someone. Just before its have fun with from the Regal Celebrity, the newest riverboat ended up being put given that a food cruise boat inside the Pennsylvania; consequently, Majestic Superstar had to make some improvement towards riverboat during the acquisition to transform they to be used “due to the fact good stopgap whenever you are [brand new Regal Star II] try under design.” (Pet’r Br. at the 5.) Far more particularly, in early 1996 Majestic Celebrity extra navigational gadgets, increased the newest vessel’s electrical potential (to deal with the fresh new operation from gaming hosts), and you will strung carpet. Regal Superstar work the fresh Majestic Superstar I out-of Summer out-of 1996 courtesy Oct off 1997. For the February step 1, 1997 analysis big date, the new Calumet Township Assessor (Assessor) assigned the fresh Regal Superstar We an assessed value of $5,143,490. Convinced that well worth is excessive, Majestic Star appealed the testing into the this content Lake County Possessions Income tax Research Board out of Is attractive (PTABOA). Immediately after performing a paying attention with the number, the brand new PTABOA shorter Majestic Star’s review to $3,271,340.Get a hold of footnote Nevertheless believing the assessment to-be excessive, Regal Star fast registered good Petition getting Review of Investigations (Setting 131) to your State Panel out-of Taxation Commissioners (State Board). After conducting an administrative reading on , the fresh new Indiana Panel then given a last dedication doubting Regal Star’s request relief.Come across footnote Towards the , Regal Superstar started exclusive taxation notice. The events after that wanted to argue happening according to the administrative listing and on their briefs. Accordingly, new Courtroom heard the latest parties’ oral arguments to your . A lot more products would-be provided because the required. Investigation And Thoughts Amount of Feedback So it Courtroom offers high deference to last determinations of one’s Indiana Panel. Wittenberg Lutheran Vill. Endowment Corp. v. Lake State Prop. Tax Investigations Bd. regarding Appeals, 782 N.Elizabeth.2d 483, 486 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003), comment declined. Therefore, the fresh new Court have a tendency to opposite a last determination of one’s Indiana Panel as long as it is: (1) random, capricious, a punishment out-of discretion, or not in accordance with rules;
(4) in place of observation out of procedure required by law; or (5) unsupported by the substantial or reliable evidence. Ind. Code Ann. § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (West Supp. 2004). Brand new team looking to overturn the fresh Indiana Board’s final devotion bears the duty from exhibiting the invalidity. Osolo Township Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane Assocs., L.P., 789 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003). Dialogue Majestic Superstar has actually increased several issues for so it Court’s review. Every one of men and women facts would be addressed therefore.