Better Evidence: - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Better Evidence:

Evidentiary presentations are the most important ― and often most challenging ― elements of a property tax appeal. This presentation aims to demystify the process. We will talk through evidentiary burdens, the rules of evidence, explanations, and objections. Specifically, we will examine the treatment of evidence in recent IBTR and Tax Court opinions.

Evan W. Bartel, Deputy Attorney General

Drew T. Grein, Deputy Attorney GeneralSlide2

Importance of Evidence“[T]he overarching goal of Indiana's new assessment scheme is to measure a property's value using objectively verifiable data.”-Westfield Golf Practice Center, LLC v. Washington Tp. Assessor

, 859 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. T.C. 2007)This requires “objectively verifiable evidence demonstrating what [the] property's market value-in-use actually is.”-Pachniak v. Marshall County Assessor, 928 N.E.2d 655 (TABLE) (Ind. T.C. 2010)Slide3

IBTR: the finder of factThe Indiana Board of Tax Review is your one and only opportunity to introduce evidence.“As the finder of fact, the Indiana Board is responsible for weighing the evidence and judging the credibility of witnesses[.]”

-Country Acres Ltd. Partnership v. Pleasant Tp. Assessor, 2010 WL 2812696 (Ind. T.C.)Slide4

IBTR: the finder of fact“Findings must be based exclusively upon the evidence on the record in the proceeding and on matters officially noticed in the proceeding[, and] upon a preponderance of the evidence.”-Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-4

The IBTR may only rely on the evidence on the record in the proceeding; and matters officially noticed in the proceedingInd. Code § 6-1.5-5-4(c)Slide5

IBTR: the finder of factThe IBTR does not have the authority to hear constitutional challenges or declare a statute unconstitutional.-Marion County Auditor v. State, 33 N.E.3d 398 (Ind. T.C. 2015)

The IBTR is not the final arbiter of the law.-Kellam v. Fountain County Assessor, 999 N.E.2d 120, 122 (Ind. T.C. 2013)Slide6

Tax Court: bound to the record“On review, the Court will neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses, but the Court will review any questions of law arising from the Indiana Board's factual findings de novo.”

-Kellam v. Fountain County Assessor, 999 N.E.2d 120, 122 (Ind. T.C. 2013)Slide7

Tax Court: bound to the record“Judicial review of disputed issues of fact must be confined to . . . the record of the proceeding before the Indiana board of tax review[.]”“Judicial review is limited to only those issues raised before the Indiana board of tax review, or otherwise described by the Indiana board of tax review, in its final determination.”

-I.C. §33-26-6-3Slide8

Tax Court: bound to the recordThe record for judicial review includes:(1) Copies of all papers submitted to and provided by the IBTR; (2) Evidence received or considered by the Indiana board.(3) A statement of whether a site inspection was conducted, and, if a site inspection was conducted, either:

(A) a summary report of the site inspection; or(B) a videotape transcript of the site inspection . . .Slide9

Tax Court: bound to the recordThe record for judicial review includes (CONTINUED):(4) A statement of matters officially noticed.(5) Proffers of proof and objections and rulings on them.(6) Copies of proposed findings, and requested orders.

(7) Either:(A) a transcription of the audio tape of the hearing; or(B) a transcript of the hearing prepared by a court reporter.-I.C. § 6-1.1-15-6(b)Slide10

Tax Court: bound to the recordThe tax court may reverse IBTR only if the final determination is:(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;(2) contrary to constitutional right, power, or privilege;

(3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations;(4) without observance of procedure required by law; or(5) unsupported by substantial or reliable evidence.-I.C. § 33-26-6-6Slide11

Tax Court: bound to the recordAppeals from the Tax Court are taken directly to the Indiana Supreme Court.The standard of review is similar, except that the Supreme Court reviews for “clear error.”

The largest difference is that the Supreme Court does not have to hear the case.Slide12

Tax Court: bound to the recordSubstantial evidence is both 1) relevant to the allegation at hand, and 2) adequate to persuade a reasonable mind that the evidence supports the finding.

See State v. C.M.B. III Enterprises, Inc., 734 N.E.2d 653, 658 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).“Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” S. Shore Marina, Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 527 N.E.2d 738, 742 (Ind. T.C. 1988).Even if there is conflicting evidence, if the evidence relied upon by the IBTR is relevant and could reasonably support the IBTR’s findings, then the tax court must defer to the IBTR’s findings.

Amax Inc. v. State Bd. of Tax

Comm’rs

, 552 N.E.2d 850, 852 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1990

).Slide13

Horror StoriesProperty Development Co. 4 v. Grant County Assessor

Union Twp. v. Department of Local Government FinanceSlide14

3 Steps to Better EvidenceThe BasicsEvidence That Works

Defenses That WorkSlide15

Step 1: The BasicsEvidence is “Something (including testimony, documents, and tangible objects) that tends to prove or disprove the existence of an alleged fact; anything presented to the senses and offered to prove the existence or nonexistence of a fact.”

- EVIDENCE, Black's Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/evidence/Slide16

Step 1: The BasicsDiscoveryParties may obtain discovery and conduct depositions per the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. 52 IAC 2-8-3Written Discovery

Interrogatories (limited to 25) – Ind. Tr. Rule 33 Requests for Admission (limited to 25) – Ind. Tr. Rule 36Request for Production of Documents – Ind. Tr. Rule 34Depositions – Ind. Tr. Rule 30http://www.in.gov/judiciary/rules/trial_proc/Slide17

Step 1: The BasicsRelevanceIn order to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Ind. Evid. Rule 402.“Evidence is relevant if:(a) It has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) The fact is of confidence in determining the action.” Ind. Evid. Rule 401Especially, important in the context of the sales-comparison approach.Must show how the comparables are relevant to the market value-in-use of the subject property at the valuation date. Long v. Wayne Township Assessor, 821 N.E.2d 466, 471-472 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005.)Slide18

Step 1: The BasicsTo be admissible, evidence must be authenticated. Ind. Rule Evid. 901“To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.”

Id.Most common way to authenticate evidence is the testimony of a witness with knowledge. Id. Slide19

Step 1: The BasicsSelf-Authenticating EvidenceDomestic Public Documents that Are Sealed and SignedDomestic Public Documents That Are Not Sealed but Are Signed and CertifiedForeign Public Documents

Certified Copies of Public RecordsOfficial PublicationsNewspapers and PeriodicalsTrade InscriptionsAcknowledged DocumentsCommercial PaperPresumptions by a Federal of Indiana StatuteCertified Domestic Records of a Regularly Conducted ActivityCertified Foreign Records of a Regularly Conducted ActivityInd. Rule Evid. 902Slide20

Step 1: The BasicsHearsay“means a statement that: (1) is not made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing; and (2) is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” Ind. Evid. Rule 801.

Under the IBTR’s rules hearsay is admissible, but it cannot be the sole basis of the IBTR’s final determination. 52 Ind. Admin. Code 2-7-2.An appraisal is hearsay if the appraiser is not present to testify and therefore cannot be sole basis of the IBTR’s final determination. Blesich v. Lake County Assessor, 46 N.E.3d 1285, 1287 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015).Slide21

Step 1: The BasicsBurden Shifting RuleTypically, the taxpayer has the burden to show that an assessment is incorrect.However, Ind. Code § 6-1.1-15-17.2 provides that the burden shifts to the Assessor in certain situations: when an assessment constitutes a 5% increase over the prior year’s assessment; and

When the taxpayer successfully appealed the prior year’s assessment and the assessment increases by any amount.Slide22

Step 1: The BasicsBurden of ProofBurden of Production – “a party’s duty to introduce enough evidence on an issue to have the issue decided by the fact-finder, rather than decided against it in a peremptory ruling.” Peters v. Garoffolo,

32 N.E.3d 847, 852 fn. 5 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2015).Burden of Persuasion – “a party’s duty to convince the fact-finder to view the facts in a way that favors that party.” Id.Unlike the burden of production, the burden of persuasion never shifts during the course of litigation. Id.Slide23

Step 1: The BasicsPrima Facie Case“A prima face case is one consisting of evidence that is “sufficient to establish a given fact and which if not contradicted will remain sufficient [to establish that fact].”

Inland Steel Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 739 N.E.2d 201, 211 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2000).When parties establish prima facie cases the burden of production shifts from them to the other parties. Id at 212.Slide24

Step 2: Evidence That Works“Indiana has promulgated a series of guidelines that explain the property valuation process in detail . . . When, as here, an assessor has assessed real property pursuant to the guidelines, her assessment is presumed accurate.”

-Jones v. Jefferson Cnty. Assessor, 51 N.E.3d 461, 464 (Ind. T.C. 2016) (citing Real Property Assessment Guidelines For 2002–Version A, Bks. 1 & 2; and 2002 Real Property Assessment Manual at 5). Slide25

Step 2: Evidence That Works“That presumption may be rebutted, however, with other market-based evidence . . . that indicates that the assessment is not an accurate reflection of the property's market value-in-use.”-

Peters v. Garoffolo, 32 N.E.3d 847, 849 (Ind. T.C. 2015) (citing 2002 Real Property Assessment Manual at 5).“[T]he goal, or end-result, [of the evidence] should be the same: to ascertain a property's market value-in-use.” -Parks v. Licking Tp. Assessor, 872 N.E.2d 710 (Table) (Ind. T.C. 2008)Mere compliance with DLGF standards or use a ratio study is not generally sufficient.- Don & Rosetta Feistel

, No. 74-016-14-1-5-10103-15 (IBTR May 17, 2016);

Samuel & Marianna Slone

, No. 57-011-14-1-5-10285-15 (IBTR January 26, 2016);

Fred H. and Shirley A. Wilke

, 15-006-14-1-5-00038 (IBTR August 10, 2015)Slide26

Step 2: Evidence That WorksThis burden can shift, either through: the 5% rule, OR

the taxpayer’s presentation of a prima facie case.Slide27

Step 2: Evidence That WorksExamples of evidence:

Construction costs, Sales information for subject property,Sales information for comparable properties, Appraisals, and Any other information compiled in accordance with generally accepted appraisal principles.  State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. Garcia, 766 N.E.2d 341, 334 (Ind. 2002).  

“[T]he most effective method to rebut the presumption that an assessment is correct is through the presentation of a market value-in-use appraisal, completed in conformance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP).”

Eckerling

v. Wayne Twp. Assessor

, 841 N.E.2d 674, 677 (Ind. T.C. 2006).Slide28

Step 2: Evidence That WorksGillette v. Brown County Assessor, 2016 WL 3165771 (Ind. T.C. June 07, 2016)Jones v. Jefferson County Assessor

, 51 N.E.3d 461 (Ind. T.C. May 04, 2016)Marion Cnty. Assessor v. Simon DeBartolo Group, 52 N.E.3d 65 (Ind. T.C. April 8, 2016)DeKalb County Assessor v. Chavez, 48 N.E.2d 928 (Ind. T.C. January 29, 2016)Wells County Assessor v. Alexin, LLC, 46 N.E.3d 1289 (Ind. T.C. December 31, 2015)Marion County Assessor v. Washington Sq. Mall, LLC, 46 N.E.3d 1 (Ind. T.C. December 30, 2015)Blesich v. Lake County Assessor, 46 N.E.3d 14 (Ind. T.C. December 30, 2015)Blesich v. Lake County Assessor, 46 N.E.3d 1285 (Ind. T.C. December 30, 2015)Marion County Assessor v. Gateway Arthur, Inc., 45 N.E.3d 876 (Ind. T.C. December 03, 2015)Allen County Assessor v. Verizon Data Services, Inc.

, 43 N.E.3d 705 (Ind. T.C. October 30, 2015)

Washington Tp. Assessor v. Verizon Data Services, Inc.

, 43 N.E.3d 697 (Ind. T.C. October 30, 2015)

Marion County Assessor v. Gateway Arthur, Inc.

, 43 N.E.3d 279 (Ind. T.C. September 30, 2015)

RJK Trust v.

LaPorte

County Assessor

, 43 N.E.3d 276 (Ind. T.C. September 18, 2015)

Cooper v. Allen County Assessor

, 42 N.E.3d 596 (Ind. T.C. September 09, 2015)

Cooper v. Allen County Assessor

, 2015 WL 5278720 (Ind. T.C. September 09, 2015)

Pulte Homes of Ind., LLC v. Hendricks County Assessor

,

42 N.E.3d 590 (Ind. T.C. Sept. 03, 2015)Slide29

Step 2: Evidence That WorksJones v. Jefferson County AssessorTaxpayer argued that home was worth $0 because it was unfinished, and presented in support a letter from a former county assessor regarding the unfinished property

The Assessor presented an appraisalThe IBTR found in the Assessor’s favor, finding the Taxpayer’s letter unpersuasiveThe Tax Court affirmed, stating that “[t]he Joneses did not provide the Indiana Board with any market-based evidence of their property's market value-in-use”Slide30

Step 2: Evidence That WorksCooper v. Allen County AssessorTaxpayer submitted a 2011 residential appraisal report for the property (2012 assessment at issue) valuing

The Assessor, on the other hand, submitted documentation indicating that five vacant lots in the neighborhood sold at prices between $20,000 to $23,000 per acre (valuation was $22,172 per acre).Comparability: shape, size, location of lots, designated in same “neighborhood”, same subdivision“Upon inspection the lots appeared to be nearly identical in terms of their level topography, access to amenities, and primary views; while there were slight differences in the size and shape of the lots, those differences did not affect the value of the lots”The IBTR found in the Assessor’s favor, stating that the Assessor showed it relied on non-arm’s length comparablesThe Tax Court affirmed, stating that houses within the same neighborhood are presumed comparableSlide31

Step 2: Evidence That Works“Nine influence factors are applicable to commercial land that take into account the effects of its 1) topography, 2) under-improvement, 3) excess frontage, 4) shape or size, 5) misimprovement

, 6) restrictions, 7) traffic flow, 8) view, and 9) corner influence.”-Indianapolis Racquet Club, Inc. v. Marion County Assessor, 15 N.E.3d 150 (Ind. T.C. 2014) (citing Real Property Assessment Guidelines For 2002, Bk. 1, Ch. 2 at 89–90, 94–95).“Rather, specific reasons must be provided as to why . . . a building is comparable, or why a building's style is ‘moderately attractive’ as opposed to ‘architecturally attractive.’”-Lacy Diversified Industries, Ltd. v. Department of Local Government Finance, 799 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. T.C. 2003); Joseph R. Caracci 1998 Trust, No. 43-023-13-1-5-00002 (IBTR February 16, 2016); Anthony M. & Katie A. Merlie, No. 06-019-14-1-5-00036 (IBTR September 25, 2015)

Cannot simply label characteristics as “superior,” “inferior,” or “similar” to the subject property.

-SK-PK Management

, No

.

18-003-12-1-4-00096; 18-003-12-1-4-00096A (IBTR April 13, 2016)Slide32

Step 2: Evidence That WorksMarion County Assessor v. Gateway Arthur, Inc. The Taxpayer brought an appraisal that used the income approach

The Assessor brought an income analysis and sales data, the Assessor also identified deficiencies in the Taxpayer’s appraisalThe IBTR decided in the Taxpayer’s favor, despite noting its failure to consider certain reimbursements paid to TaxpayerThe Tax Court affirmed, holding (1) that the Taxpayer’s appraisal was probative despite the use of loaded capitalization rates and the failure to account for use of the sign and access road, (2) the Assessor’s income analysis was not probative because the Assessor never explained the propriety of its capitalization rate and there was conflicting evidence as to the effect of tax expenses, and (3) evidence of the 2007 purchase failed to relate the sale price to the individual property“Although the Assessor had tools to elicit data on such a claim, the record evidence simply does not indicate that Gateway Arthur collected rent from other retailers based on their use of those parcels.”Slide33

Step 2: Evidence That WorksMarion County Assessor v. Gateway Arthur, Inc.The Assessor had the burden, and brought an income analysis for the improvements and a document showing a 2007 purchase price (for a 2006 valuation)

Taxpayer had an appraisal, but the Assessor moved to admit itThe IBTR found that the Assessor did not make a prima facie caseThe Tax Court affirmed, holding: (1) the income analysis was properly disregarded because the expense ratio and capitalization rate does not include property tax, and (2) the sales price information was properly disregarded because the property was purchased in a portfolio, and the Assessor did not explain how much of the purchase price for that portfolio was allocated to the subject propertySlide34

Step 2: Evidence That WorksIncomeWorks

IncomeWorks is a valid tool for calculating property values, but a party relying on its analysis must still explain the underlying data used and show why it constitutes probative evidence of true tax value. State Street Corner, LLC, No. 79-026-12-1-4-00002; 79-026-13-1-4-00006 (IBTR December 18, 2015)“

While the Respondent asserted that

IncomeWorks

uses data from properties that are similar in age, condition, design, quality, amenities, and have similar locations, the Respondent failed to

offer meaningful testimony

relating the five properties’ specific features and characteristics to the subject property. Specific reasons must be provided as to why a proponent believes a property is comparable.”

Gregory A.

Seger

v. Vigo County Assessor, Pet. No. 84-013-12-1-5-00002 (February 16, 2015).

“

IncomeWorks

may be a valid tool for delivering a calculation of value but the Respondent failed to

prove it

. Furthermore, a party introducing a report produced by such software tool must also

show that the underlying data used by the software are reliable

to the conclusion to constitute probative evidence of a property’s market value-in-use.”

Gregory A.

Seger

v. Vigo County Assessor, Pet. No. 84-013-12-1-5-00002 (February 16, 2015).Slide35

Step 3: Defenses That WorkProblems in an appraisal: Mathematical error,

Discrepancy regarding the base price, Typographical and reporting errors, Internal discrepancies regarding his ultimate valuation conclusions, Misidentification of the cost schedule, Errors in applying the cost approach. Horizon Properties LLC v. Grant County Assessor, Pet. Nos.27-002-07-1-4-00229, 27-002-08-1-4-00012, 27-002-09-1-4-00045, 27-002-10-1-4-00022, 27-002-12-1-4-00031 (June 17, 2015).

“Glaring flaws” in an appraisal:

Effective date more than a year after the valuation date.

Failed to provide explanation to relate to the valuation date.

Failed to trend the value back to the relevant valuation date.

Two of the most significant adjustments were insufficient.

Failed to make any adjustments for age, despite the fact that his purportedly comparable properties ranged in age from 10 to approximately 100 years.

LaMar

& Gina

Bost

v. Elkhart County Assessor

, Pet. No. 20-030-12-1-5-00051 (July 15, 2015)Slide36

Step 3: Defenses That WorkGillette v. Brown County AssessorAssessor had burden under 5% rule, asked for reinstatement of prior year assessmentTaxpayer brought insurance liability limits, a 1998 appraisal, and a 2006 appraisalIBTR found that Taxpayer had not made a

prima facie caseTaxpayer appealed, arguing (1) the IBTR used the wrong methodology, and (2) the IBTR incorrectly rejected her evidentiary presentationTax Court affirmed the IBTR“Gillette's argument . . . attacks merely the methodology . . . and does not address the key issue—whether $592,000 was a reasonable reflection of the property's market value-in-use.”The Court held that Gillette failed to relate its evidence to the year in issue.Slide37

Step 3: Defenses That WorkMarion County Assessor v. Simon DeBartolo Group, LPTaxpayer presented documentation for sale of property, and used a trending analysis to relate the sale price to the valuations dates

The Assessor submitted an income approach analysis, and identified flaws in the Taxpayer’s evidenceThe IBTR held that the Taxpayer made a prima facie case, and that the Assessor did not rebut itThe Tax Court affirmed, noting: (1) the relation back of the sale price was permissible, (2) Taxpayer had shown sale was at arm’s-length, which required the Assessor to disprove the arm’s-length relationship, (3) the Assessor had not provided any evidence regarding the alleged decrease in value before the sale, and (4) had not explained the alleged errors in the trending analysis.Slide38

Step 3: Defenses That WorkRJK Trust v. LaPorte County AssessorThe Assessor had the burden and submitted an independent appraisal report

Taxpayer presented testimony, PTABOA hearing minutes, property record cards, and a portion of the Real Property Assessment Guidelines The IBTR decided in the Assessor’s favorThe Tax Court reversed, holding that the Assessor failed to comply with the disclosure procedures by not making the appraisal available to the Taxpayer prior to the hearingThe matter was remanded for a new hearingSlide39

Step 3: Defenses That WorkMarion County Assessor v. Washington Square Mall, LLCTaxpayer brought an appraisal which used comparable sales of regional malls, and market rents (rather than contract rents) for income capitalization, with reconciliation

The Assessor brought a review appraisal, which used grocery-anchored strip malls as comparables, and contract rents for income capitalizationThe IBTR held that both parties presented a prima facie case, but assigned greater weight to the Taxpayer’s evidence due to better comparablesThe Tax Court affirmed in-part, holding: (1) Taxpayer’s appraisal was not flawed by its reliance on hypothetical resale to purchaser who would change the use, and (2) flaws in one valuation approach are not fatal if another approach is free of flawsThe Tax Court reversed in-part, holding: (1) an appraiser cannot “cherry pick” comparables without explaining reasons to do so, (2) an appraiser cannot use capitalizations rates that are not supported by underlying factsSlide40

Step 3: Defenses That WorkBlesich v. Lake County AssessorThe Assessor calculated a sales price per sq. foot using sales of 4 similar properties.

Taxpayer provided a 2012 appraisal (for 2006 valuation) and comparable salesThe IBTR held that neither party made a prima facie case because they failed to demonstrate comparability of their property, and because the Taxpayer’s appraisal did not relate to the tax yearsThe Tax Court affirmed, stating “litigants must provide specific reasons why they believe a property is comparable or how any differences might impact their value. General . . .are nothing more than conclusions. Conclusory statements do not constitute probative evidence. Rather, Blesich was required to explain to the Indiana Board the characteristics of his own property, how those characteristics compared to those of the other properties, and how any differences in any of their characteristics affected their values.” (internal citations omitted)Slide41

Step 3: Defenses That WorkBlesich v. Lake County AssessorTaxpayer submitted an appraisal and a settlement letter from a prior yearThe Assessor did not submit any market data, but argued the Taxpayer’s evidence was inappropriate

The IBTR found that the Taxpayer’s evidence was inappropriate, and that he had not made a prima facie case.The Tax Court affirmed, holding: (1) that the appraisal was hearsay and therefore could not form the sole basis for a prima facie case, and (2) settlement letters are inadmissibleSlide42

Step 3: Defenses That WorkDOCUMENTARY OBJECTIONS:

irrelevant immaterialwaste of time or cumulativeno foundationprejudice outweighs probative value confusing or misleading inadmissible opinion of lay witnessprivilegednot authenticatedimproper copypublic record not certified or insufficient supporting testimony summary if underlying documents not made available as required

not disclosed as required by mandatory disclosure

not disclosed as required by a document request to which opposing counsel did not object

not disclosed as required by a pre-trial order

document admissible only for a limited purposeSlide43

Step 3: Defenses That WorkObjections to Form of Question:leading question during direct

examination compoundambiguous or unintelligiblealready asked and answeredargumentativetoo general or calls for a narrativemisquotes the witness or misstates prior evidenceassumes facts not in evidenceObjections to Substance of Answer:irrelevant hearsay lack of personal

knowledge/no

foundation

speculation

waste

of time or

cumulative

confusing

or

misleading

inadmissible

opinion of lay

witness

privileged

cross

beyond scope of direct

answer

beyond scope of

questionSlide44

Step 3: Defenses That Work“A witness . . . may testify as an expert as to the value of the property.”-State v. Vaughan, 184 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 1962)

2 elements of expert qualification: (1) the subject of the testimony must be “beyond the ken of laymen;” and (2) “the witness must have sufficient skill, knowledge, or experience in that field as to make it appear that his or her opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in the search for the truth.”-Davis v. Schneider, 395 N.E.2d 283 (Ind. Ct. App. 1979)Slide45

Questions?

Evan W. Bartel, Deputy Attorney General- Tax LitigationEvan.Bartel@atg.in.gov(317) 232-0149Drew T. Grein, Deputy Attorney General- Tax LitigationAndrew.Grein@atg.in.gov(317) 232-4849