New Court was served with another items into focus: Whether or not the assessment away from Regal Star’s riverboat because real estate violates Article 10, § hands down the Indiana Constitution;

Attorney To own PETITIONER: Attorneys Getting RESPONDENT: TIMOTHY D. HERNLY STEVE CARTER RICHARD J. DEAHL Attorneys General Off INDIANA BARNES & THORNBURG Indianapolis, For the Southern Bend, Inside the LINDA We. VILLEGAS DEPUTY Attorneys Standard Indianapolis, In the ______________________________________________________________________ Regarding the INDIANA Taxation Courtroom The newest Majestic Star Gambling enterprise, LLC, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) Produce No. 71T10-0305-TA-twenty-four BOOKER BLUMENBURG, JR., ) TOWNSHIP ASSESSOR Off CALUMET ) TOWNSHIP, River County, INDIANA, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________________________________________________

The newest Regal Celebrity Casino, LLC (Regal Star) appeals the brand new Indiana Board regarding Tax Review’s (Indiana Panel) last determination valuing its gambling establishment riverboat (riverboat) on March 1, 1997 testing big date

Facts And Procedural Record Majestic Celebrity are an Indiana limited liability business one to operates a casino riverboat – this new Regal Star II – into Lake Michigan. The fresh new Regal Superstar II, revealed within the October, 1997, is harbored in the Buffington Harbor when you look at the Gary, Indiana. The fresh new Regal Celebrity II offers good docking pavilion that have another riverboat, the fresh Trump Local casino. Just like the Majestic Celebrity II was being depending, Majestic Celebrity rented a smaller riverboat away from a 3rd-group to utilize in its operation. Discover footnote It faster riverboat, this new Regal Celebrity We, is actually produced in 1972 along with an authorized holding ability away from 1,900 anybody. In advance of its explore because of the Majestic Celebrity, brand new riverboat got put just like the a dinner cruise watercraft during the Pennsylvania; properly, Regal Superstar must earn some variations towards riverboat in buy to alter they for use “since an effective stopgap when you’re [the fresh new Regal Celebrity II] is actually around build.” (Pet’r Br. within 5.) So much more especially, at the beginning of 1996 Majestic Star additional navigational products, enhanced the vessel’s electronic skill (to handle brand new procedure away from gambling computers), and you will hung carpet. Regal Celebrity operate the brand new Majestic Star I of June from 1996 compliment of October off 1997. Towards the March 1, 1997 review day, the brand new Calumet Township Assessor (Assessor) tasked the new Regal Star I an evaluated property value $5,143,490. Believing that well worth as too much, Majestic Celebrity appealed the investigations to the River Condition Possessions Tax Analysis Board from Is attractive (PTABOA). Once carrying out a hearing for the amount, new PTABOA quicker Majestic Star’s assessment to $3,271,340.Discover footnote Still assuming the new testing become excessive, Majestic Star fast filed an effective Petition to possess Summary of Review (Form 131) for the State Panel from Tax Commissioners (County Panel). Once conducting an administrative reading on , the new Indiana Panel subsequently approved a final determination doubt Regal Star’s request zodiac casino recovery.Discover footnote Toward , Regal Celebrity started an original taxation interest. Brand new parties next accessible to dispute the case in line with the administrative record and on their briefs. Accordingly, new Courtroom read the latest parties’ oral arguments for the . A lot more issues could be supplied because the expected. Analysis And View Degree of Remark This Court gives high deference so you can final determinations of Indiana Board. Wittenberg Lutheran Vill. Endowment Corp. v. River State Prop. Tax Testing Bd. out-of Appeals, 782 N.E.2d 483, 486 (Ind. Income tax Ct. 2003), feedback refuted. Therefore, the fresh Court often opposite a final commitment of your own Indiana Panel as long as it is: (1) random, capricious, a punishment of discernment, or not relative to law;

(4) in place of observation of techniques required by rules; otherwise (5) unsupported by the good otherwise reputable research. Ind. Password Ann. § 33-26-6-6(e)(1)-(5) (Western Supp. 2004). The brand new party trying to overturn the Indiana Board’s finally determination bears the burden regarding indicating its invalidity. Osolo Township Assessor v. Elkhart Maple Lane Assocs., L.P., 789 N.E.2d 109, 111 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003). Conversation Majestic Celebrity keeps elevated multiple issues for it Court’s remark. Each of the individuals points might be handled therefore.