Packard v. Shoopman

852 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2006) · Supreme Court of Indiana · August 23, 2006 · No. 49S10-0509-TA-414

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that an objection to the timeliness of a petition for review in the Indiana Tax Court is a procedural defense rather than a subject-matter jurisdiction defect. Under Indiana Trial Rule 8(C), as applied through the Tax Court rules, the objection must be raised in the party's first response or it is waived. The court affirmed the Tax Court's judgment because the assessor raised the timeliness objection more than a year after the initial response.

Court
Supreme Court of Indiana
Writing for the Court
Boehm, Justice; Shepard, Chief Justice; Dickson, Justice; Sullivan, Justice; Rucker, Justice
Jurisdiction
Indiana
Decision date
August 23, 2006
Docket number
49S10-0509-TA-414
Procedural posture
The Clay Township Assessor sought review of an Indiana Tax Court decision holding that the Assessor waived an objection to the timeliness of Shoopman's petition for judicial review and reversing the Indiana Board of Tax Review's property-tax determination. The Indiana Supreme Court granted review.
Standard of review
De novo review of the legal question whether the timeliness objection was jurisdictional or waivable; the Supreme Court did not review the merits of the property-tax appeal.
Precedential value
published precedential opinion
Parties
Dixie Packard, Clay Township Assessor v. Paul Shoopman
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

property taxtax court procedureappellate proceduresubject matter jurisdictionwaiver

Practice areas

taxadministrative lawcivil procedureappellate procedurestatutory interpretation

Questions Presented

  1. Whether failure to timely file a petition for judicial review in the Indiana Tax Court deprives the Tax Court of subject matter jurisdiction.
  2. Whether an objection to the timeliness of a Tax Court petition is waived when not raised in the party's first timely response.

Holdings

  1. The statutory deadline for filing a petition for review in the Tax Court is a procedural prerequisite to docketing an appeal, not a limitation on the Tax Court's subject matter jurisdiction. An objection based on untimely filing therefore may be waived or procedurally defaulted.
  2. A challenge to the timeliness of a petition for review must be raised in the party's response under Tax Court Rule 5 and Indiana Trial Rule 8(C), or the objection is waived. Because the Assessor first raised the objection more than thirty days after the petition and only in a 2005 response brief, the objection was waived.

Key quotations

We hold that objection based on a petitioner's alleged failure to comply with the statutory requirement that petition to the Tax Court be filed within thirty days after the agency determination is waived if not raised in the first response to the petition. (at 928)
Because the timeliness of filing does not affect the subject matter jurisdiction of the Tax Court, any objection to the timeliness of filing is a procedural rather than jurisdictional error that can be waived if not raised at the appropriate time. (at 932)

Factual background

Shoopman challenged the 1995 assessment of his real property in Hamilton County. The State Board held a hearing in 1998 but did not issue a final determination before the matter was transferred to the Indiana Board of Tax Review. The IBTR issued its final determination on August 7, 2002, and Shoopman filed his Tax Court petition on September 23, 2002. The Assessor did not challenge timeliness until 2005, after first responding only to seek dismissal of other named respondents.

Procedural history

Shoopman appealed a 1995 real-property assessment to the State Board of Tax Commissioners, whose pending appeal was later transferred to the Indiana Board of Tax Review. After the IBTR issued a final determination on August 7, 2002, Shoopman petitioned the Indiana Tax Court for review on September 23, 2002. The Tax Court dismissed certain respondents, later held that the Assessor waived any timeliness objection, and reversed the IBTR on the merits. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tax Court's judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…