To contact us Click HERE
From the Hendricks County Flyer:
Two "no" votes on the Hendricks County Council were enough to stop a $5 increase on the wheel and sur taxes. But the proposal isn't dead yet.
Eric Wathen, president of the Hendricks County Board of Commissioners, asked the council to raise the wheel and sur taxes from $20 per vehicle to $25. Both fund road maintenance, the wheel tax applying to personal motor vehicles and the sur tax on commercial vehicles including trailers.
...
Revenue from the state's gas tax was down almost 2 percent for the county between 2003 and '11. While money collected from the wheel tax was up almost 16 percent in that time, the cost of asphalt - both liquid and material - soared 75 percent and 80 percent respectively. Personnel costs also increased 45 percent, but that's partly because some highway workers stopped getting paid from the general fund.
Another problem for counties is how the state allocates some of its taxes. About a third of the money coming in through the gas tax goes to the state police and Bureau of Motor Vehicles, not roads. The 7 percent sales tax on gas doesn't go to road maintenance either, but is allocated to the general fund.
Wathen estimates that raising than wheel and sur taxes to $25 would give the county an additional $414,000, or about 50 percent more than what they have now for road maintenance. That's enough to pave about four and a half miles.
"That doesn't seem like a lot, but when you have over 800 miles of road to pave - and we can't even pave every road we have once every hundred years now - this takes us down to once every 67 years, so we're moving in the right direction," Wathen said.
He added that he continues to appeal to state representatives to keep transportation tax revenue where it belongs. But he also acknowledges that state officials view wheel taxes as a sign that counties are trying to help themselves.
...
A unanimous vote is required to pass the tax increase. Since it was 5-2, the county council has scheduled a special meeting for 9 a.m. June 29 at the Hendricks County Government Center to vote on the issue again. It must pass before July 1 in order to begin collecting the extra tax in 2013.
http://flyergroup.com/local/x651523058/County-council-split-on-proposed-tax-increase
23 Haziran 2012 Cumartesi
Annual Abatement Reports Suggest Incentives Working in Greencastle
To contact us Click HERE
From the Greencastle Banner-Graphic:
...
Dory told the City Council that the six companies making their annual abatement reports to the city, represent 1,769 total jobs -- an increase of approximately 200 from last year.
In reality, the job figures are actually greater, Dory said, because the statement of benefits provided with the abatement reports do not include fulltime temporary positions or workers provided through employment services.
Local employment, Dory said, "is pretty much starting to come back."
The abatement reports also represent a cumulative total of $68.3 million in new equipment investment and $7.6 million in real estate.
The six companies who received annual approval of their statement of benefits from the City Council Tuesday are Chiyoda (formerly Happico), Crown Equipment, F B Distro, International Automotive Components Corp. (IAC, formerly Lear Corp.), Heartland and Garmong.
...
http://www.bannergraphic.com/story/1860471.html
...
Dory told the City Council that the six companies making their annual abatement reports to the city, represent 1,769 total jobs -- an increase of approximately 200 from last year.
In reality, the job figures are actually greater, Dory said, because the statement of benefits provided with the abatement reports do not include fulltime temporary positions or workers provided through employment services.
Local employment, Dory said, "is pretty much starting to come back."
The abatement reports also represent a cumulative total of $68.3 million in new equipment investment and $7.6 million in real estate.
The six companies who received annual approval of their statement of benefits from the City Council Tuesday are Chiyoda (formerly Happico), Crown Equipment, F B Distro, International Automotive Components Corp. (IAC, formerly Lear Corp.), Heartland and Garmong.
...
http://www.bannergraphic.com/story/1860471.html
Board Finds Petitioner's Valuation Calculations without Sufficient Support to be Probative
To contact us Click HERE
[T]he Petitioner contends thatthe land on his properties was assessed correctly based on the state mandatedagricultural rate and the productivity factors. Grabbe testimony. ThePetitioner also agrees with the assessed values of the one-acre home sitesbecause the values were based on sales. Id. The Petitioner only arguesthat the improvements on the properties are over-valued. Grabbe argument.
In order to show the marketvalue of the improvements, Mr. Grabbe purports to have “abstracted” the fairmarket value of the land from his purchase price. The Petitioner first removedthe $11,240 assessed value of the one-acre building site from the amount of thepurchase allocated to the 3.664 acre parcel. Petitioner Exhibit 4SN. Similarly,he subtracted the $3,890 assessed value for the one-acre building site from theamount of the purchase price allocated to the 19.266 acre parcel. PetitionerExhibit 4SF. Then, to calculate the value of the remaining 2.664 acres ofthe 3.664 acre parcel and the value of the remaining 18.266 acres of the 19.266acre parcel, Mr. Grabbe relied on the purchase of a contiguous property.According to Mr. Grabbe, Ceres Farms, LLC, purchased approximately 200 acres inCarroll County for $1,647,513, or $8,216 an acre, in February 2009. PetitionerExhibit 17S. However, the sales disclosure forms that Mr. Grabbe submittedindicate Ceres Farms purchased six parcels of land for $2.8 million. Id. Accordingto a hand-written notation, two of the six parcels are located in ClintonCounty. Id. In addition, the sales disclosure form shows the typed $2.8million sale price struck out by pen and “1,647,513” (no dollar sign) writtenbeside the figure by hand. While it is possible the handwritten notation of“1,647,513” was an allocation of that sale price to the four parcels in CarrollCounty, it is not clear on the record. Even if the Board assumed that thehandwritten “1,647,513” was intended to be an allocation of the sale price tothe four Carroll County parcels, there is no evidence showing the basis forthat allocation. In fact, there is no evidence of who made the handwrittennotation or when the “allocation” was made. More importantly, the Petitionersupplied the sales disclosure forms for only two of the four parcels inCarroll County. Id. There is no information as to the size of the otherparcels included in the purchase. Thus, Mr. Grabbe’s contention thatagricultural land is worth $8,216 based on Ceres Farms’ purchase of farmland isunsupported by the evidence. And Mr. Grabbe’s use of $5,300 an acre iscompletely without support in the record. While Mr. Grabbe provided someevidence that agricultural land is assessed below its market value-in-use, Mr.Grabbe’s evidence fails to sufficiently show the land’s actual value. Withoutprobative evidence of the value of his land, Mr. Grabbe’s attempt to “abstract”the value of the properties’ improvements from his purchase price fails toraise a prima facie case that his hog barns are over-valued.
The Petitioner also contendshis properties are over-assessed based on an income approach to value.According to Mr. Grabbe, he used the properties’ actual rent of $90,000 anddeducted depreciation, an estimated amount for repairs, and the actual cost ofinsurance and real estate taxes, resulting in a net operating income of$42,442. The Petitioner then applied a 20% capitalization rate to theproperties’ net income, added in $15,000 for the extra farm land and deducted$36,579 for personal property from the calculation, resulting in an estimatedvalue of $191,401… Here Mr. Grabbe used site-specific income and expenseinformation, but he provided no evidence to demonstrate that the properties’ incomeor expenses were typical for comparable properties in the market. Thus, any lowrent or high expense levels may be attributed to the Petitioner’s management ofthe property as opposed to the property’s market value. See Lake CountyTrust Co. No. 1163 v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 694 N.E.2d 1253,1257-58 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998) (economic obsolescence was not warranted wheretaxpayer executed unfavorable leases resulting in a failure to realize as muchnet income from the subject property).
Additionally, the Petitionerfailed to adequately support his capitalization rate. A capitalization rate“reflects the annual rate of return necessary to attract investment capital andis influenced by such factors as apparent risk, market attitudes toward futureinflation, the prospective rates of return for alternative investments, therates of return earned by comparable properties in the past, the supply of anddemand for mortgage funds, and the availability of tax shelters.” SeeHometowne Associates, L.P. v. Maley, 839 N.E.2d 269, 275 (Ind. Tax Ct.2005). Here the Petitioner based his capitalization rate on the rate used in anappraisal of a different – and more importantly an unidentified –property by an appraiser without even submitting the entire appraisal for theBoard’s review. While the rules of evidence generally do not apply inthe Board’s hearings, the Board requires some evidence of the accuracy andcredibility of the evidence. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Board of TaxCommissioners, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998); and Herb v.State Board of Tax Commissioners, 656 N.E.2d 890, 893 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995).Mr. Grabbe’s assurance that the unidentified appraised property was“comparable” to the properties under appeal falls well below the standard ofproof required in a property tax appeal. See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821N.E.2d 466, 469 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (conclusory statements that a property is“similar” or “comparable” to another property do not constitute probativeevidence of the comparability of the two properties). Thus, the Boardconcludes that the Petitioner’s income analysis fails to raise a prima faciecase that the subject properties’ assessed values should be reduced.
The Petitioner also argues thathis properties are over-valued based on a cost approach analysis. Grabbetestimony. In his analysis, Mr. Grabbe testified that he used the county’sreproduction cost. Id.; Petitioner Exhibit 13S. The Petitioner then“corrected” the building area in the hog building on the 3.664 acre parcel andadded an obsolescence adjustment to the buildings on both parcels. Id. According to Mr. Grabbe, his cost approach analysisshows the properties under appeal should be valued at no more than $188,320together. Id.
Here, Mr. Grabbe argues that heis entitled to an obsolescence adjustment of 35% to the buildings on the 3.664acre parcel and an obsolescence adjustment of 45% to the buildings on the19.266 acre parcel because of the out-dated design of the buildings and theobsolete manure lagoon system. For a Petitioner to show it is entitled toreceive an adjustment for obsolescence, however, the Petitioner must bothidentify the causes of obsolescence it believes is present in its improvementsand also quantify the amount of obsolescence it believes should be applied toits property. Clark v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 694 N.E.2d 1230, 1241(Ind. Tax Ct. 1998). Thus, the Petitioner must present probative evidence thatthe causes of obsolescence identified by the Petitioner are causing an actualloss in value to its property. See Miller Structures, Inc. v. State Bd. ofTax Comm'rs, 748 N.E.2d 943, 954 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001). It is not sufficientfor a Petitioner to merely identify random factors that may cause the propertyto be entitled to an obsolescence adjustment. See Champlin Realty Co. v.State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 745 N.E.2d 928, 936 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001). ThePetitioner must explain how those purported causes of obsolescence cause theproperty's improvements to suffer an actual loss in value. Id. Here, thePetitioner identified factors that could cause obsolescence but he onlyassigned a random value to those factors. There is no evidence, for example,that a facility with an obsolete manure storage system is worth 15% less than abuilding with deep pit manure storage. Similarly, the Petitioner presented noevidence that “quad barns” sell for 15% more than his “conventional finishingbarns.” The Board therefore finds that the Petitioner’s cost approach analysisis too unreliable to be given any probative weight.
Further, in simply applying anobsolescence factor to the reproduction cost determined by the assessor, thePetitioner has merely recalculated the mass appraisal version of the costapproach set out in the Guidelines. This the Indiana Tax Court held fails tomake a case that a property’s assessment should be changed. See Eckerling v.Wayne Township Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 764 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). In Eckerling,Judge Fisher found that it is insufficient to simply dispute the method bywhich a property is assessed. A Petitioner must show through the use ofmarket-based evidence that the assessed value does not accurately reflect theproperty’s market value-in-use. The Board is unconvinced that labeling aGuidelines-based argument as a “cost approach valuation” is sufficient toovercome the Tax Court’s ruling in Eckerling. See also O’Donnell v.Department of Local Government Finance, 854 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006).
Finally, the Petitioner contendsthat his properties are over-valued based on the sales prices of threeadditional properties – two properties that the Petitioner purchased in 2008and a third property in Carroll County that sold in 2008. Grabbe testimony;Petitioner Exhibit 16. According to Mr. Grabbe, the subject properties’ valueis $184,311 based on a price per pig space of $42.50. Id.
Here, the Petitioner merelytestified “I’m just going to let this record speak for itself.” Id. Accordingto Mr. Grabbe, “I compared [the other properties] as good as any appraiser hasever done.” The Petitioner, however, made no attempt to explain the deductionshe made for houses, land and tool sheds on the comparable properties. “[I]t isthe taxpayer's duty to walk the Indiana Board . . . through every element ofthe analysis.” See Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. Washington TownshipAssessor, 802 N.E.2d 1018, 1022 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004). It is not the Board’sresponsibility to determine how Mr. Grabbe calculated the value of other landand buildings on nearby properties. Thus, the Petitioner failed to raise aprima facie case that his properties were over-valued based on a salescomparison analysis.
Most importantly, thePetitioner failed to show that his income approach, cost approach or salescomparison approach valuations conformed to the Uniform Standards ofProfessional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) or any other generally accepted standards.Consequently, the Petitioner’s income approach, cost approach and salescomparison approach calculations lack probative value in this case. SeeInland Steel Co. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 739 N.E.2d 201, 220(Ind. Tax Ct. 2000) (holding that an appraiser’s opinion lacked probative valuewhere the appraiser failed to explain what a producer price index was, how itwas calculated or that its use as a deflator was a generally accepted appraisaltechnique). Ultimately, Mr. Grabbe’s assertions may not differ significantlyfrom those made by a certified appraiser in an appraisal report. But theappraiser’s assertions are backed by his education, training, and experience.The appraiser also typically certifies that he complied with USPAP. Thus, the Board,as the trier-of-fact, can infer that the appraiser used objective data, whereavailable, to quantify his adjustments. And where objective data was notavailable, the Board can infer that the appraiser relied on his education,training and experience to estimate a reliable quantification. Mr. Grabbe,however, is not a certified appraiser; he did not establish that he has anyparticular expertise in applying generally accepted appraisal principles; andhe did not certify that he complied with USPAP in performing his valuationanalysis. Moreover, Mr. Grabbe, as the owner of the property, has an interest inthe subject property’s value being lowered and therefore cannot be relied uponto provide an unbiased assessment of the subject properties’ values. The Boardtherefore will not simply defer to Mr. Grabbe’s “market observations” withoutevidence showing the data upon which he grounded his observations.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Grabbe_08-002-10-1-1-00001_and_2.pdf
In order to show the marketvalue of the improvements, Mr. Grabbe purports to have “abstracted” the fairmarket value of the land from his purchase price. The Petitioner first removedthe $11,240 assessed value of the one-acre building site from the amount of thepurchase allocated to the 3.664 acre parcel. Petitioner Exhibit 4SN. Similarly,he subtracted the $3,890 assessed value for the one-acre building site from theamount of the purchase price allocated to the 19.266 acre parcel. PetitionerExhibit 4SF. Then, to calculate the value of the remaining 2.664 acres ofthe 3.664 acre parcel and the value of the remaining 18.266 acres of the 19.266acre parcel, Mr. Grabbe relied on the purchase of a contiguous property.According to Mr. Grabbe, Ceres Farms, LLC, purchased approximately 200 acres inCarroll County for $1,647,513, or $8,216 an acre, in February 2009. PetitionerExhibit 17S. However, the sales disclosure forms that Mr. Grabbe submittedindicate Ceres Farms purchased six parcels of land for $2.8 million. Id. Accordingto a hand-written notation, two of the six parcels are located in ClintonCounty. Id. In addition, the sales disclosure form shows the typed $2.8million sale price struck out by pen and “1,647,513” (no dollar sign) writtenbeside the figure by hand. While it is possible the handwritten notation of“1,647,513” was an allocation of that sale price to the four parcels in CarrollCounty, it is not clear on the record. Even if the Board assumed that thehandwritten “1,647,513” was intended to be an allocation of the sale price tothe four Carroll County parcels, there is no evidence showing the basis forthat allocation. In fact, there is no evidence of who made the handwrittennotation or when the “allocation” was made. More importantly, the Petitionersupplied the sales disclosure forms for only two of the four parcels inCarroll County. Id. There is no information as to the size of the otherparcels included in the purchase. Thus, Mr. Grabbe’s contention thatagricultural land is worth $8,216 based on Ceres Farms’ purchase of farmland isunsupported by the evidence. And Mr. Grabbe’s use of $5,300 an acre iscompletely without support in the record. While Mr. Grabbe provided someevidence that agricultural land is assessed below its market value-in-use, Mr.Grabbe’s evidence fails to sufficiently show the land’s actual value. Withoutprobative evidence of the value of his land, Mr. Grabbe’s attempt to “abstract”the value of the properties’ improvements from his purchase price fails toraise a prima facie case that his hog barns are over-valued.
The Petitioner also contendshis properties are over-assessed based on an income approach to value.According to Mr. Grabbe, he used the properties’ actual rent of $90,000 anddeducted depreciation, an estimated amount for repairs, and the actual cost ofinsurance and real estate taxes, resulting in a net operating income of$42,442. The Petitioner then applied a 20% capitalization rate to theproperties’ net income, added in $15,000 for the extra farm land and deducted$36,579 for personal property from the calculation, resulting in an estimatedvalue of $191,401… Here Mr. Grabbe used site-specific income and expenseinformation, but he provided no evidence to demonstrate that the properties’ incomeor expenses were typical for comparable properties in the market. Thus, any lowrent or high expense levels may be attributed to the Petitioner’s management ofthe property as opposed to the property’s market value. See Lake CountyTrust Co. No. 1163 v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 694 N.E.2d 1253,1257-58 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998) (economic obsolescence was not warranted wheretaxpayer executed unfavorable leases resulting in a failure to realize as muchnet income from the subject property).
Additionally, the Petitionerfailed to adequately support his capitalization rate. A capitalization rate“reflects the annual rate of return necessary to attract investment capital andis influenced by such factors as apparent risk, market attitudes toward futureinflation, the prospective rates of return for alternative investments, therates of return earned by comparable properties in the past, the supply of anddemand for mortgage funds, and the availability of tax shelters.” SeeHometowne Associates, L.P. v. Maley, 839 N.E.2d 269, 275 (Ind. Tax Ct.2005). Here the Petitioner based his capitalization rate on the rate used in anappraisal of a different – and more importantly an unidentified –property by an appraiser without even submitting the entire appraisal for theBoard’s review. While the rules of evidence generally do not apply inthe Board’s hearings, the Board requires some evidence of the accuracy andcredibility of the evidence. Whitley Products, Inc. v. State Board of TaxCommissioners, 704 N.E.2d 1113, 1119 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998); and Herb v.State Board of Tax Commissioners, 656 N.E.2d 890, 893 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1995).Mr. Grabbe’s assurance that the unidentified appraised property was“comparable” to the properties under appeal falls well below the standard ofproof required in a property tax appeal. See Long v. Wayne Twp. Assessor, 821N.E.2d 466, 469 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005) (conclusory statements that a property is“similar” or “comparable” to another property do not constitute probativeevidence of the comparability of the two properties). Thus, the Boardconcludes that the Petitioner’s income analysis fails to raise a prima faciecase that the subject properties’ assessed values should be reduced.
The Petitioner also argues thathis properties are over-valued based on a cost approach analysis. Grabbetestimony. In his analysis, Mr. Grabbe testified that he used the county’sreproduction cost. Id.; Petitioner Exhibit 13S. The Petitioner then“corrected” the building area in the hog building on the 3.664 acre parcel andadded an obsolescence adjustment to the buildings on both parcels. Id. According to Mr. Grabbe, his cost approach analysisshows the properties under appeal should be valued at no more than $188,320together. Id.
Here, Mr. Grabbe argues that heis entitled to an obsolescence adjustment of 35% to the buildings on the 3.664acre parcel and an obsolescence adjustment of 45% to the buildings on the19.266 acre parcel because of the out-dated design of the buildings and theobsolete manure lagoon system. For a Petitioner to show it is entitled toreceive an adjustment for obsolescence, however, the Petitioner must bothidentify the causes of obsolescence it believes is present in its improvementsand also quantify the amount of obsolescence it believes should be applied toits property. Clark v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 694 N.E.2d 1230, 1241(Ind. Tax Ct. 1998). Thus, the Petitioner must present probative evidence thatthe causes of obsolescence identified by the Petitioner are causing an actualloss in value to its property. See Miller Structures, Inc. v. State Bd. ofTax Comm'rs, 748 N.E.2d 943, 954 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001). It is not sufficientfor a Petitioner to merely identify random factors that may cause the propertyto be entitled to an obsolescence adjustment. See Champlin Realty Co. v.State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 745 N.E.2d 928, 936 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2001). ThePetitioner must explain how those purported causes of obsolescence cause theproperty's improvements to suffer an actual loss in value. Id. Here, thePetitioner identified factors that could cause obsolescence but he onlyassigned a random value to those factors. There is no evidence, for example,that a facility with an obsolete manure storage system is worth 15% less than abuilding with deep pit manure storage. Similarly, the Petitioner presented noevidence that “quad barns” sell for 15% more than his “conventional finishingbarns.” The Board therefore finds that the Petitioner’s cost approach analysisis too unreliable to be given any probative weight.
Further, in simply applying anobsolescence factor to the reproduction cost determined by the assessor, thePetitioner has merely recalculated the mass appraisal version of the costapproach set out in the Guidelines. This the Indiana Tax Court held fails tomake a case that a property’s assessment should be changed. See Eckerling v.Wayne Township Assessor, 841 N.E.2d 764 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006). In Eckerling,Judge Fisher found that it is insufficient to simply dispute the method bywhich a property is assessed. A Petitioner must show through the use ofmarket-based evidence that the assessed value does not accurately reflect theproperty’s market value-in-use. The Board is unconvinced that labeling aGuidelines-based argument as a “cost approach valuation” is sufficient toovercome the Tax Court’s ruling in Eckerling. See also O’Donnell v.Department of Local Government Finance, 854 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2006).
Finally, the Petitioner contendsthat his properties are over-valued based on the sales prices of threeadditional properties – two properties that the Petitioner purchased in 2008and a third property in Carroll County that sold in 2008. Grabbe testimony;Petitioner Exhibit 16. According to Mr. Grabbe, the subject properties’ valueis $184,311 based on a price per pig space of $42.50. Id.
Here, the Petitioner merelytestified “I’m just going to let this record speak for itself.” Id. Accordingto Mr. Grabbe, “I compared [the other properties] as good as any appraiser hasever done.” The Petitioner, however, made no attempt to explain the deductionshe made for houses, land and tool sheds on the comparable properties. “[I]t isthe taxpayer's duty to walk the Indiana Board . . . through every element ofthe analysis.” See Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. Washington TownshipAssessor, 802 N.E.2d 1018, 1022 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2004). It is not the Board’sresponsibility to determine how Mr. Grabbe calculated the value of other landand buildings on nearby properties. Thus, the Petitioner failed to raise aprima facie case that his properties were over-valued based on a salescomparison analysis.
Most importantly, thePetitioner failed to show that his income approach, cost approach or salescomparison approach valuations conformed to the Uniform Standards ofProfessional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) or any other generally accepted standards.Consequently, the Petitioner’s income approach, cost approach and salescomparison approach calculations lack probative value in this case. SeeInland Steel Co. v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, 739 N.E.2d 201, 220(Ind. Tax Ct. 2000) (holding that an appraiser’s opinion lacked probative valuewhere the appraiser failed to explain what a producer price index was, how itwas calculated or that its use as a deflator was a generally accepted appraisaltechnique). Ultimately, Mr. Grabbe’s assertions may not differ significantlyfrom those made by a certified appraiser in an appraisal report. But theappraiser’s assertions are backed by his education, training, and experience.The appraiser also typically certifies that he complied with USPAP. Thus, the Board,as the trier-of-fact, can infer that the appraiser used objective data, whereavailable, to quantify his adjustments. And where objective data was notavailable, the Board can infer that the appraiser relied on his education,training and experience to estimate a reliable quantification. Mr. Grabbe,however, is not a certified appraiser; he did not establish that he has anyparticular expertise in applying generally accepted appraisal principles; andhe did not certify that he complied with USPAP in performing his valuationanalysis. Moreover, Mr. Grabbe, as the owner of the property, has an interest inthe subject property’s value being lowered and therefore cannot be relied uponto provide an unbiased assessment of the subject properties’ values. The Boardtherefore will not simply defer to Mr. Grabbe’s “market observations” withoutevidence showing the data upon which he grounded his observations.
http://www.in.gov/ibtr/files/Grabbe_08-002-10-1-1-00001_and_2.pdf
TIF study highlights shortfalls in Indianapolis
To contact us Click HERE
From a lengthy article in the Indianapolis Business Journal:
...the primary risk in creating TIF districts is that developments inside their boundaries won’t pan out, tax revenue in districts won’t rise, and local governments will be on the hook for infrastructure investments.
That’s happened a lot since the 2008 recession, and investors are wary of bonds issued on new TIF districts, unless they’re backed by the local government’s entire property tax base, said Tom Enright, executive vice president of fixed income and capital markets at City Securities Corp. in Indianapolis.
“Most of the issue is on the slowdown of economic development across the country,” Enright said.
Indianapolis has 30 active TIF districts, and nine of them, or 30 percent, aren’t covering their current obligations. The gaps range from 7 percent for a consolidated airport fund, which is composed of seven separate TIF districts and covers the United Airlines maintenance hub, to 64 percent in the Fall Creek East housing TIF.
...
See the full article here:
http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=35135
(this is a paid article)
...the primary risk in creating TIF districts is that developments inside their boundaries won’t pan out, tax revenue in districts won’t rise, and local governments will be on the hook for infrastructure investments.
That’s happened a lot since the 2008 recession, and investors are wary of bonds issued on new TIF districts, unless they’re backed by the local government’s entire property tax base, said Tom Enright, executive vice president of fixed income and capital markets at City Securities Corp. in Indianapolis.
“Most of the issue is on the slowdown of economic development across the country,” Enright said.
Indianapolis has 30 active TIF districts, and nine of them, or 30 percent, aren’t covering their current obligations. The gaps range from 7 percent for a consolidated airport fund, which is composed of seven separate TIF districts and covers the United Airlines maintenance hub, to 64 percent in the Fall Creek East housing TIF.
...
See the full article here:
http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=35135
(this is a paid article)
Ordinance Ends Co-mingling Funds in New Albany
To contact us Click HERE
From the Jeffersonville News and Tribune:
An ordinance establishing a separate checking account for the general fund was approved 5-4 Thursday, with New Albany City Councilman Kevin Zurschmiede labeling the move as a way to end the “open ended line of credit” administrations have used to pay bills.
Zurschmiede sponsored the measure, and said it spawned from consecutive years of the council being asked by administrations to approve funding to cover for money that had already been spent.
Essentially there have been cases where administrations have shuffled money from one account to cover spending in the general fund without the council’s approval, Zurschmiede said.
The money was moved so bills could be paid, as the city doesn’t always receive its tax revenue from the state and county in time to account for budgeted expenses, several council members said.
...
By ordinance or resolution, state code calls for the fiscal body of a political subdivision — in the case of New Albany the city council — to approve a transfer for cash flow purposes.
Mayor Doug England’s administration was cited by the State Board of Accounts for failing to garner council approval before transferring $1.5 million of tax-increment financing money to the general fund for cash flow in 2009.
Administration officials at the time stated they didn’t realize the transfer required council approval.
...
http://newsandtribune.com/business/x439048659/Measure-ends-co-mingling-of-some-New-Albany-funds
An ordinance establishing a separate checking account for the general fund was approved 5-4 Thursday, with New Albany City Councilman Kevin Zurschmiede labeling the move as a way to end the “open ended line of credit” administrations have used to pay bills.
Zurschmiede sponsored the measure, and said it spawned from consecutive years of the council being asked by administrations to approve funding to cover for money that had already been spent.
Essentially there have been cases where administrations have shuffled money from one account to cover spending in the general fund without the council’s approval, Zurschmiede said.
The money was moved so bills could be paid, as the city doesn’t always receive its tax revenue from the state and county in time to account for budgeted expenses, several council members said.
...
By ordinance or resolution, state code calls for the fiscal body of a political subdivision — in the case of New Albany the city council — to approve a transfer for cash flow purposes.
Mayor Doug England’s administration was cited by the State Board of Accounts for failing to garner council approval before transferring $1.5 million of tax-increment financing money to the general fund for cash flow in 2009.
Administration officials at the time stated they didn’t realize the transfer required council approval.
...
http://newsandtribune.com/business/x439048659/Measure-ends-co-mingling-of-some-New-Albany-funds
21 Haziran 2012 Perşembe
What Are the Tax Deductions for Using a Car for Business?
To contact us Click HERE
Self-employed or an employee, if you use a car for business, you get the benefit of tax deductions.
There are two choices for claiming deductions:
1. Deduct the actual business-related costs of gas, oil, lubrication, repairs, tires, supplies, parking, tolls, drivers' salaries, and depreciation.Which Method Is Better?
Self-employed or an employee, if you use a car for business, you get the benefit of tax deductions.There are two choices for claiming deductions:
1. Deduct the actual business-related costs of gas, oil, lubrication, repairs, tires, supplies, parking, tolls, drivers' salaries, and depreciation.
- Use the standard mileage deduction in 2012 and simply multiply 55.5 cents by the number of business miles traveled during the year. Your actual parking fees and tolls are deducted separately under this method.
Which Method Is Better?
For some taxpayers, using the standard mileage rate produces a larger deduction. Others fare better tax-wise by deducting actual expenses.
Tip: The actual cost method allows you to claim accelerated depreciation on your car, subject to limits and restrictions not discussed here.
The standard mileage amount includes an allowance for depreciation. Opting for the standard mileage method allows you to bypass certain limits and restrictions and is simpler-- but it's often less advantageous in dollar terms.
Caution: The standard rate may understate your costs, especially if you use the car 100% for business, or close to that percentage.
Generally, the standard mileage method benefits taxpayers who have less expensive cars or who travel a large number of business miles.How to Make Tax Time Easier
Keep careful records of your travel expenses and record your mileage in a logbook. If you don't know the number of miles driven and the total amount you spent on the car, we won't be able to determine which of the two options is more advantageous for you.
Furthermore, the tax law requires that you keep travel expense records and that you give information on your return showing business versus personal use. If you use the actual cost method for your auto deductions, you must keep receipts.
Tip: Consider using a separate credit card for business, to simplify your recordkeeping.
Tip: You can also deduct the interest you pay to finance a business-use car if you're self-employed.
Note: Self-employed individuals and employees who use their cars for business can deduct auto expenses if they either (1) don't get reimbursed, or (2) are reimbursed under an employer's "non-accountable" reimbursement plan. In the case of employees, expenses are deductible to the extent that auto expenses (together with other "miscellaneous itemized deductions") exceed 2% of adjusted gross income.
We will help you determine the best deduction method for your business-use car. Let us know if you have any questions about which records you need to keep. Executive Resources FSI - 530-888-6691 - Deborah Sandbak, serving Auburn and Placer County.
When Is it Too Late to Make an IRA Contribution?
To contact us Click HERE
Haven't contributed funds to an Individual Retirement Arrangement for tax year 2011, or put in less than the maximum allowed?? You still have time to do so. You can contribute to either a traditional or Roth IRA until the April due date for filing your tax return for 2011, not including extensions.
Be sure to tell the IRA trustee that the contribution is for 2011. Otherwise, the trustee may report the contribution as being for 2012 when they get your funds.
Generally, you can contribute up to $5,000 of your earnings for 2011 or up to $6,000 if you are age 50 or older in 2011. You can fund a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA (if you qualify), or both, but your total contributions cannot be more than these amounts.
Note: IRA contribution limits remain the same in 2012 - $5,000, or $6,000 if age 50 or older.
Traditional IRA: You may be able to take a tax deduction for the contributions to a traditional IRA, depending on your income and whether you or your spouse, if filing jointly, are covered by an employer's pension plan.
Roth IRA: You cannot deduct Roth IRA contributions, but the earnings on a Roth IRA may be tax-free if you meet the conditions for a qualified distribution.
Each year, the IRS announces the cost of living adjustments and limitation for retirement savings plans. In 2011 and 2012, however, the contribution limits for defined benefit and defined contribution plans did not change as the Consumer Price Index did not meet the regulatory thresholds.
Saving for retirement should be part of everyone's financial plan and it's important to review your retirement goals every year in order to maximize savings. If you need help - give us a call. Deborah Sandbank - Executive Resources FSI - 530-888-6691 Serving Auburn CA and All of Placer County.
Haven't contributed funds to an Individual Retirement Arrangement for tax year 2011, or put in less than the maximum allowed?? You still have time to do so. You can contribute to either a traditional or Roth IRA until the April due date for filing your tax return for 2011, not including extensions.Be sure to tell the IRA trustee that the contribution is for 2011. Otherwise, the trustee may report the contribution as being for 2012 when they get your funds.
Generally, you can contribute up to $5,000 of your earnings for 2011 or up to $6,000 if you are age 50 or older in 2011. You can fund a traditional IRA, a Roth IRA (if you qualify), or both, but your total contributions cannot be more than these amounts.
Note: IRA contribution limits remain the same in 2012 - $5,000, or $6,000 if age 50 or older.
Traditional IRA: You may be able to take a tax deduction for the contributions to a traditional IRA, depending on your income and whether you or your spouse, if filing jointly, are covered by an employer's pension plan.
Roth IRA: You cannot deduct Roth IRA contributions, but the earnings on a Roth IRA may be tax-free if you meet the conditions for a qualified distribution.
Each year, the IRS announces the cost of living adjustments and limitation for retirement savings plans. In 2011 and 2012, however, the contribution limits for defined benefit and defined contribution plans did not change as the Consumer Price Index did not meet the regulatory thresholds.
Saving for retirement should be part of everyone's financial plan and it's important to review your retirement goals every year in order to maximize savings. If you need help - give us a call. Deborah Sandbank - Executive Resources FSI - 530-888-6691 Serving Auburn CA and All of Placer County.
Kaydol:
Kayıtlar (Atom)