The newest Courtroom is offered another affairs on desire: Whether or not the analysis from Regal Star’s riverboat since property violates Post ten, § one of the Indiana Constitution;

Lawyer To own PETITIONER: Lawyer To have RESPONDENT: TIMOTHY D. HERNLY STEVE CARTER RICHARD J. DEAHL Attorneys Standard From INDIANA BARNES & THORNBURG Indianapolis, Within the South Fold, In LINDA I. VILLEGAS DEPUTY casinogamings.com/review/yukon-gold-casino/ Attorney General Indianapolis, From inside the ______________________________________________________________________ Regarding INDIANA Taxation Legal The fresh Regal Superstar Gambling establishment, LLC, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Bring about Zero. 71T10-0305-TA-24 BOOKER BLUMENBURG, JR., ) TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR Off CALUMET ) TOWNSHIP, River County, INDIANA, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________________________________________________

This new Majestic Star Gambling establishment, LLC (Majestic Superstar) appeals the Indiana Panel out of Taxation Review’s (Indiana Board) final commitment valuing their local casino riverboat (riverboat) into the March 1, 1997 review big date

Things And you will Proceeding Record Regal Star is an enthusiastic Indiana limited-liability business you to works a casino riverboat – new Majestic Star II – to the Lake Michigan. The newest Majestic Celebrity II, launched during the Oct, 1997, try harbored from the Buffington Harbor in Gary, Indiana. The new Majestic Celebrity II offers good docking pavilion having various other riverboat, the brand new Trump Gambling enterprise. Since Majestic Superstar II was being oriented, Majestic Superstar rented a smaller riverboat out of a 3rd-cluster to use in procedure. Discover footnote So it faster riverboat, the new Regal Celebrity We, is produced in 1972 together with an official holding capabilities of step one,900 people. Ahead of their explore by Regal Star, the brand new riverboat ended up being put as the a meal sail motorboat during the Pennsylvania; correctly, Regal Superstar was required to earn some modifications for the riverboat in acquisition to transform they for use “while the good stopgap whenever you are [the latest Regal Celebrity II] are not as much as structure.” (Pet’r Br. from the 5.) Even more especially, at the beginning of 1996 Majestic Star additional navigational gadgets, enhanced new vessel’s electric capabilities (to handle this new operation out of gaming hosts), and you will hung carpet. Majestic Star run the newest Regal Superstar I away from June off 1996 thanks to Oct away from 1997. Into the March 1, 1997 testing go out, brand new Calumet Township Assessor (Assessor) assigned the latest Regal Celebrity I an evaluated value of $5,143,490. Convinced that well worth become too high, Regal Superstar appealed their analysis on the River Condition Possessions Tax Comparison Board regarding Appeals (PTABOA). After conducting a paying attention with the number, the latest PTABOA smaller Regal Star’s assessment to $step three,271,340.Pick footnote However thinking the investigations are excessive, Regal Celebrity quick recorded a Petition to possess Report on Research (Function 131) to the County Board out of Taxation Commissioners (County Panel). Shortly after conducting a management reading toward , the newest Indiana Board after that given a last determination doubt Regal Star’s ask for relief.Find footnote Into the , Majestic Star started exclusive tax appeal. The latest people then agreed to dispute the scenario according to the administrative record as well as on the briefs. Correctly, new Court heard this new parties’ oral arguments into . Even more factors could be given since the needed. Investigation And Thoughts Degree of Remark This Judge offers higher deference so you can final determinations of your own Indiana Panel. Wittenberg Lutheran Vill. Endowment Corp. v. Lake County Prop. Tax Review Bd. regarding Is attractive, 782 N.Elizabeth.2d 483, 486 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003), comment refused. For that reason, the Courtroom often reverse a last determination of your own Indiana Panel on condition that it’s: (1) haphazard, capricious, a punishment off discernment, or perhaps not in accordance with law;

(4) as opposed to observance off processes necessary for laws; otherwise (5) unsupported by nice otherwise reliable evidence. Ind. Code Ann. § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (West Supp. 2004). The people trying overturn the fresh new Indiana Board’s latest commitment carries the burden from indicating the invalidity. Osolo Township Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Way Assocs., L.P., 789 Letter.Age.2d 109, 111 (Ind. Income tax Ct. 2003). Discussion Majestic Celebrity has elevated numerous problems for which Court’s feedback. All of the individuals items would-be managed in turn.