Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 33-26-6-2 (2026)
Tax appeal or injunction; injunction pending appeal
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. (a) A taxpayer who wishes to initiate an original tax appeal must file a petition in the tax court to set aside the final determination of the department of state revenue or the Indiana board of tax review. If a taxpayer fails to comply with any statutory requirement for the initiation of an original tax appeal, the tax court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
(b) A taxpayer who wishes to enjoin the collection of a tax pending the original tax appeal must file a petition with the tax court to enjoin the collection of the tax. The petition must set forth a summary of:
(1) the issues that the petitioner will raise in the original tax appeal; and
(2) the equitable considerations for which the tax court should order the collection of the tax to be enjoined.
(c) After a hearing on the petition filed under subsection (b), the tax court may enjoin the collection of the tax pending the original tax appeal, if the tax court finds that:
(1) the issues raised by the original tax appeal are substantial;
(2) the petitioner has a reasonable opportunity to prevail in the original tax appeal; and
(3) the equitable considerations favoring the enjoining of the collection of the tax outweigh the state's interests in collecting the tax pending the original tax appeal.
(d) This section does not apply to a final determination of the Indiana gaming commission under IC 4-32.3.
(e) This section applies to a final determination made by the department of state revenue concerning the gaming card excise tax established under IC 4-32.3-10.
[Pre-2004 Recodification Citation: 33-3-5-11.]
As added by P.L.98-2004, SEC.5. Amended by P.L.91-2006, SEC.12; P.L.58-2019, SEC.29.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2006–2023 · leading case: Packard v. Shoopman, 852 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2006).
Packard v. Shoopman, 852 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2006). “Indiana Code section 33-26-6-2 (2004) provides that "If a taxpayer fails to comply with any statutory requirement for the initiation of an original tax appeal, the tax court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”
In the Matter of the Adoption of O.R., N.R. v. K.G. & C.G., 16 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2014). “The Assessor relied on Indiana Code section 33-26-6-2 which provides: “If a taxpayer fails to comply with any statutory requirement for the initiation of an original tax appeal, the tax court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”
Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation v. Town of Brownsburg, Indiana, 32 N.E.3d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “In addressing this argument, our supreme court held in relevant part as follows: The statutory provision for timely filing in the Tax Court found in Indiana Code section 33-26-6-2 predates our decision in K.”
Washington Park Cemetery Ass'n v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 9 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. T.C. 2014). “) In addition, Washington Park argues that the legislature has organized Indiana Code § 33-26-6-2 into separate and distinct sections to deal with the separate and distinct petitions that may be brought before this Court-a petition to set aside a final determination, on the one…”
Wayne Cnty. Prop. Tax Assessment Bd. of Appeals v. United Ancient Order of Druids-Grove 29, 847 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. 2006). “Standard of Review Indiana Code section 33-26-6-2(a) (2004) provides "If a taxpayer fails to comply with any statutory requirement for the initiation of an original tax appeal, the tax court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”
Andrew Hunter v. State of Indiana, Dep't of Transp., 67 N.E.3d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “The Packard court explained, The statutory provision for timely filing in the Tax Court found in Indiana Code section 33-26-6-2 predates our decision in K.”
Warriner v. Dc Marshall Jeep, 962 N.E.2d 1263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “Thus, in Packard, our supreme court held that the use of the phrase, "the tax court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal," I.C. § 33-26-6-2, referred to this less precise meaning.”
Wigwam Holdings LLC v. Madison Cnty. Assessor, 115 N.E.3d 531 (Ind. T.C. 2018). “) On May 11, 2018, Holdings initiated an original tax appeal and filed a Petition to Enjoin the Collection of Tax pursuant to Indiana Code § 33-26-6-2. On October 5, 2018, Holdings filed an emergency motion to remove the property at issue from a tax sale, which the Court granted…”
Wigwam Holdings LLC v. Madison Cnty. Assessor, 125 N.E.3d 7 (Ind. T.C. 2019). “( See Cert. Admin. R. at 422 ¶ 53.) On May 11, 2018, Holdings initiated an original tax appeal and filed a Petition to Enjoin the Collection of Tax pursuant to Indiana Code § 33-26-6-2.”
Virginia Garwood & Kristen Garwood v. State of Indiana, 77 N.E.3d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “See I.C. § 33-26-6-2 (authorizing such injunction).”
Indiana Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin. v. Meyer, 900 N.E.2d 74 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “On appeal, the Assessor asserted that failure to file a timely petition for judicial review deprived the Tax Court of subject matter jurisdiction, citing Indiana Code Section 33-26-6-2, *79 which provided at the relevant time: "If a taxpayer fails to comply with any statutory…”
Wayne Twp. v. Indiana Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 865 N.E.2d 625 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “At this time Indiana Code Section 33-3-5-2 contained the statement of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction that is now found in Section 33-26-6-2. When creating the Board of Tax Review, the Legislature gave it express authority to review decisions of the DLGF under the following…”
Ind. Code § 33-26-6-2(2004): 1 case
Andrew Hunter v. State of Indiana, Dep't of Transp., 67 N.E.3d 1085 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “The Packard court explained, The statutory provision for timely filing in the Tax Court found in Indiana Code section 33-26-6-2 predates our decision in K.”
Ind. Code § 33-26-6-2(a): 7 cases
Packard v. Shoopman, 852 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2006). “Indiana Code section 33-26-6-2 (2004) provides that "If a taxpayer fails to comply with any statutory requirement for the initiation of an original tax appeal, the tax court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”
Wayne Cnty. Prop. Tax Assessment Bd. of Appeals v. United Ancient Order of Druids-Grove 29, 847 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. 2006). “Standard of Review Indiana Code section 33-26-6-2(a) (2004) provides "If a taxpayer fails to comply with any statutory requirement for the initiation of an original tax appeal, the tax court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.”
Washington Park Cemetery Ass'n v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 9 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. T.C. 2014). “) In addition, Washington Park argues that the legislature has organized Indiana Code § 33-26-6-2 into separate and distinct sections to deal with the separate and distinct petitions that may be brought before this Court-a petition to set aside a final determination, on the one…”
West Ohio II, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 9 N.E.3d 267 (Ind. T.C. 2014).
Idris v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 956 N.E.2d 783 (Ind. T.C. 2011).
Ind. Code § 33-26-6-2(b): 3 cases
Washington Park Cemetery Ass'n v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 9 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. T.C. 2014). “) In addition, Washington Park argues that the legislature has organized Indiana Code § 33-26-6-2 into separate and distinct sections to deal with the separate and distinct petitions that may be brought before this Court-a petition to set aside a final determination, on the one…”
West Ohio II, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 9 N.E.3d 267 (Ind. T.C. 2014).
Goldstein v. Dept. of Local Gov't Fin., 876 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. T.C. 2007).
Ind. Code § 33-26-6-2(b)(l): 1 case
West Ohio II, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 9 N.E.3d 267 (Ind. T.C. 2014).
Ind. Code § 33-26-6-2(c): 2 cases
Wigwam Holdings LLC v. Madison Cnty. Assessor, 115 N.E.3d 531 (Ind. T.C. 2018). “) On May 11, 2018, Holdings initiated an original tax appeal and filed a Petition to Enjoin the Collection of Tax pursuant to Indiana Code § 33-26-6-2. On October 5, 2018, Holdings filed an emergency motion to remove the property at issue from a tax sale, which the Court granted…”
Washington Park Cemetery Ass'n v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 9 N.E.3d 271 (Ind. T.C. 2014). “) In addition, Washington Park argues that the legislature has organized Indiana Code § 33-26-6-2 into separate and distinct sections to deal with the separate and distinct petitions that may be brought before this Court-a petition to set aside a final determination, on the one…”
Ind. Code § 33-26-6-2(e): 1 case
West Ohio II, LLC v. Marion Cnty. Assessor, 9 N.E.3d 267 (Ind. T.C. 2014).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.