id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-18385	Jegen, Lawrence A, III; Prescott, Peter; Thompson, Shea N	Recent Developments in Indiana Taxation: Survey 2013	2015	44	.pdf	application/pdf	21045	1278	64	Assessor v. Verizon Data Services, Inc.194—This matter pertains to Verizon’s motion to dismiss the Assessors’ appeal pursuant to Indiana Tax Court Rule 4 and Indiana Trial Rules 12(B)(1), (2), (4), and (5). The DLGF issued a final determination approving IndyGo’s 2006 request but denying its 2007 request.158 IndyGo appealed this final determination to the Indiana Tax Court, arguing the DLGF’s determination was unlawful, not supported by the evidence, and an abuse of discretion.159 On appeal, IndyGo claimed the DLGF’s final determination was contrary to the law, because the DLGF did not follow the correct statutory procedure in determining the lack of property tax revenue shortfall in 2007.160 IndyGo acknowledged that neither the Code nor any DLGF regulation prescribes a method for calculating a property tax revenue shortfall, but nevertheless argued the DLGF’s calculation did not comply with clearly stated legislative policy.161 The Tax Court declined to overturn the DLGF’s final determination on this ground, as it would have required a reweighing of the evidence, which is not proper in reviewing administrative agency final determinations.162 IndyGo also challenged the DLGF’s final determination, because it was “not supported by the evidence” since the DLGF granted IndyGo’s 2006 request, which was computed using the same methodology as in the 2007 request.163 The Tax Court also declined to overturn the final determination on this ground because the administrative records showed the DLGF’s calculation found a shortfall in 2006 in the amount of $469,535.164 IndyGo only requested $344,478.	cache/inlawrev-18385.pdf	txt/inlawrev-18385.txt