Posted without bias, opinion, or editing

Respectfully Submitted,

(Current) Democrat Committeeman 1-10

by jennifer Nelson of the indianalawyers.com

The Indiana Tax Court Thursday affirmed the 2007 assessment of a property in an upscale community on Lake Michigan, rejecting the homeowner’s argument that the assessment should be lower because surrounding homes were assessed at a lower ratio when taking into account the prices at which the homes were sold.

William Thorsness appealed the $1,647,800 assessment of the property he purchased on Jan. 31, 2007, for $1.65 million. He argued that his assessment should be reduced to $1,311,750, which is 79.5 percent of the purchase price. He came up with this percentage after looking at six other residential properties in his neighborhood and found, on average, they were assessed at 79.5 percent of their recent sale prices.

The Indiana Board of Tax Review affirmed the assessment, finding Thorsness’ “ratio study” didn’t meet the criteria for ratio studies.  Because of that, it was not probative in demonstrating that his property was inequitably or non-uniformly assessed.

He appealed in February 2011, and the Tax Court heard arguments in August 2011.

In William W. Thorsness v. Porter County Assessor, 49T10-1102-TA-14, Thorsness claimed the tax board erred in determining that he, and not the assessor, bore the burden of proof at the administrative hearing. Second, he claimed that the board erred in determining that his evidence was not probative in demonstrating that the assessor’s assessment lacked uniformity.

In 2009, the General Assembly established an exception to the rule that a taxpayer always bears the burden of proof when challenging property tax assessments – I.C. 6-1.1-15-1(p), “the burden-shifting rule.” The exception occurs when the assessed value increases by more than five percent over the preceding assessment date.

“[T]he Indiana Board’s mistake does not constitute reversible error in this case because the burden-shifting rule contained in Indiana Code § 6-1.1-15-1(p) (and its progeny) applies only to valuation challenges, not to uniform and equal constitutional challenges for the following reasons,” Judge Martha Blood Wentworth wrote.

She noted that while Thorsness’ data on his neighbors’ assessments is relevant, the board didn’t err in determining it was not probative in demonstrating that his property was assessed and taxed at a level that exceeded the common level within the township overall. The standards outlined by the Department of Local Government Finance require a statistical measure of assessment uniformity must be calculated for the entire taxing district and each stratum therein.

City-County Observer has  just confirmed this evening, that General Manager of Tropicana-Evansville, Ward Shaw, is resigning his position affective immediately.

Mr. Shaw is highly regarded in the national gaming Industry.  He is also extremely well thought of as a positive community leader in this community.

The Golden State’s version of Obamacare has gotten more positive coverage than the federal version, but it’s hardly thriving.

Covered California’s problems start with its failure to meet the Affordable Care Act’s central goal: increasing the number of people with health insurance. Last week, Covered California reported it had signed up 625,000 residents, with about 500,000 having paid their first premium. But according to state regulators, about 1.1 million Californians had their 2013 policies canceled because they didn’t meet Obamacare standards.

Meanwhile, a national survey of insurance officials found at least two-thirds of Obamacare enrollees were people who previously had coverage. If that holds roughly true for the nation’s largest state, the Affordable Care Act’s main effect in California hasn’t been to bring coverage to the previously uninsured. It’s been to create churn in the marketplace.

There are other major problems as well. Just 15 percent of those enrolled aren’t eligible for subsidies. If that ratio continues — nearly six subsidized enrollees for every unsubsidized enrollee — then Covered California’s cost to taxpayers will explode.

And there’s reason to think the ratio will continue: More than half of the Californians without health insurance are Latinos, mostly low-income or unemployed. But they make up only one in five of those who have enrolled with the agency.

These numbers spurred sharp criticism of Covered California officials last week. The state Legislature’s Latino Caucus disputed agency claims that better marketing would sharply increase Latino participation. Critics said that wouldn’t make up for a poor Spanish-language website, weak outreach and the agency’s failure to understand the Latino community.

If Covered California corrects these problems, and Latino enrollment surges, that’s good news in terms of the agency’s goals. But then it would be more likely that the highly costly ratio of subsidized to unsubsidized enrollees continues.

So the state’s version of Obamacare has reduced the number of Californians with health insurance while doing a terrible job with the single community that was most in need of health coverage and assistance in navigating the bureaucracy to obtain it. The program also appears likely to be far more costly to taxpayers than previously estimated.

If this is an Affordable Care Act success story, that’s a profound comment on how badly the rollout is going elsewhere around the nation.

Which brings us to Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California. For nearly a year, Lee has issued statement after statement depicting his agency as a shining example of brilliant governance. Last week, he finally shifted out of happy talk mode. “We have not provided good customer service,” he acknowledged.

Source: Union Tribune

We hope this candor continues, and on many other fronts. Covered California will never live up to its hype. But triage may help the agency realize its goals and limit the damage it does to taxpayers.