id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-3436	Jegen III, Lawrence A.; Schnurpel, Kendall S.	Developments in Indiana Taxation	2000	42	.pdf	application/pdf	19120	1425	69	In rejecting these arguments, the court held that the mere fact that Indiana was refunding tax that it could have kept did not make the in-Indiana limitation constitutional/' It further explained that while the fuel not apportioned to Indiana may not have been subject to Indiana tax, the limitation nevertheless distorted the apportionable base* by including all fuel used in operating the PTO but exempting only the Indiana PTO fuel/^ According to the 486. The court rejected this argument citing section 6-1 .l-2-4(a) ofthe Indiana Code which authorizes the state board to impose liability for property tax on the person in possession of the property but does not indicate any order of priority between the owner and the possessor.^^^ Dav-Con next challenged the accuracy of the valuation.^^^ It suggested that the state board's final assessment was flawed because the correspondence sent to the owners to obtain the true cost of the steel did not adequately define cost.^ The court held that the definition ofcost under the relevant regulations was essentially the same as the common usage definition.^^^ Therefore, the correspondence was a reasonable means^^^ ofarriving at a value for purposes of the assessment, despite the state board's failure to specifically define cost.^^^	cache/inlawrev-3436.pdf	txt/inlawrev-3436.txt