Lana K. & Leon A. Oxley v. Christoper Lenn, et al. (12/28/04 IndCtApp) [Legal Malpractice]
Sharpnack, Judge
[The Oxleys] appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to their former attorney, Christian Lenn, and his law firm, Raibley & Lenn, LLP (collectively, “Lenn”). The Oxleys raise two issues, which we consolidate and restate as whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to Lenn in the Oxleys’ legal malpractice case. We reverse and remand. [More coming]Hoosier Energy Rural Electric Cooperative, Inc., et al. v. Department of Local Government Finance (12/23/04 IndTaxCt) [Property Tax]
The sole issue before the Court is whether the State Board erred in not assessing the Petitioners’ property on a consolidated basis during the years at issue. * * *Posted by Marcia Oddi at December 28, 2004 03:45 PMIndiana Code § 6-1.1-8 is completely silent with respect to the filing of consolidated returns by public utilities, as are the administrative regulations applicable to public utility assessment. See Ind. Admin. Code tit. 50, r. 5.1-6 (1996). This Court has often said that what a statute or regulation does not say is just as important as what it does say. See LeSea Broad. Corp. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 525 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1988). See also Western Select Prop. v. State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs, 639 N.E.2d 1068, 1073 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1994) (stating that rules of statutory construction also apply to administrative rules and regulations). This leads the Court to the conclusion that the statutes and regulations relating to public utility assessment were drafted with the intent that public utilities cannot file consolidated returns.
As mentioned earlier, the Petitioners’ entire argument is based on the fact that because three other public utilities were allowed to file consolidated returns, the Petitioners, likewise, are entitled to such a filing. The fact that those other public utilities filed consolidated returns, however, will be of no consequence to the treatment the Petitioners seek. Indeed, there is no sound reason to give the Petitioners the benefit of the State Board’s misinterpretation and misapplication of the law simply because someone else may have previously benefited from the same mistake; to do so would only exacerbate the inequity for everyone else.
CONCLUSION. For the foregoing reasons, this Court hereby AFFIRMS the State Board’s final determinations in this case.