Julia Chirkova
ANDERSON, Ind. – The Indiana Tax Court has affirmed a ruling by the Indiana Board of Tax Review concerning Nestle’s appeal of its property tax assessment, concluding a multi-year dispute that sought a significant reduction in the valuation of the company’s food processing and distribution facility located southwest of Anderson along Interstate 69. The court’s decision reinforces the assessor’s valuation, rejecting Nestle’s arguments for a substantially lower assessment.
The legal battle centered on Nestle’s appeal for six years, with the company initially seeking to reduce its property tax assessment by $15 million for each of those years. According to a press release from the Nexus Group, which represented Madison County Assessor Larry Davis, the total assessed value Nestle was challenging amounted to $25 million per year across the six-year period. Assessor Davis’s office had set the property’s assessment value at $55 million in 2023. Nestle, however, argued that the assessment should be based on the market value if the site were sold, a calculation they contended would place the tax at $33.9 million in 2023.
Had Nestle’s appeal been successful, the company would have been entitled to a refund of approximately $3.2 million, plus accrued interest. However, the Indiana Tax Court’s affirmation of the Board of Tax Review’s decision means this outcome will not materialize. Nestle retains the option to appeal the Tax Court’s determination to the Indiana Supreme Court for a review of the opinion, with a 30-day window to do so.
A notable aspect of this case is that Madison County incurred no attorney fees throughout the proceedings, largely due to the representation provided by the Nexus Group.
The Core of the Dispute: Burden Shifting and Valuation Methods
At the heart of Nestle’s appeal was its assertion that the assessor’s office misapplied Indiana’s Burden Shifting Statute for the tax years 2019, 2020, and 2021. This statute generally places the onus on the taxpayer to prove that an assessment is incorrect if the assessor has a reasonable basis for their valuation. The assessor’s office maintained that Nestle had undertaken significant improvements to its facility, which inherently increased its value and, consequently, its assessment. This, according to the assessor’s filings, shifted the burden onto Nestle to demonstrate that these improvements did not warrant the higher valuation.
The property in question is an industrial building utilized as a food processing and distribution facility. Nestle established its operations at this Anderson site in 2008, focusing on the manufacturing of coffee creamers and ready-to-drink beverages. The facility represents a significant industrial presence within Madison County, contributing to local employment and economic activity.
A Chronology of the Appeal Process
The appeal process began in earnest the previous year, following a determination by the Indiana Board of Tax Review. This board, tasked with adjudicating property tax disputes, found that the assessor’s appraiser presented a more compelling and well-supported case than Nestle’s representatives.
The assessor’s appraisal, conducted by David Hall of Integra Realty Resource, employed a multi-faceted approach to valuation. Hall’s analysis considered various factors, including the comparative values of industrial land with similar acreage in the region, the costs associated with site improvements such as a substantial parking lot and a rail spur essential for logistics, and general depreciation costs associated with the facility’s infrastructure.
Further complicating the valuation, the county’s appraisal also took into account broader market trends impacting the dairy industry. The report noted the declining sales within the sector as a growing number of consumers shifted towards plant-based substitutes, a demographic and market shift that could influence the property’s long-term marketability and, by extension, its assessed value.
In its formal determination issued in September 2025, the Indiana Board of Tax Review articulated its reasoning for siding with the assessor. The board stated, "We find the assessor’s appraisal more persuasive because he presented a more complete analysis and better supported key aspects of his appraisal." This statement underscored the thoroughness and credibility of the county’s valuation methodology.
Implications of the Tax Court’s Decision
The Indiana Tax Court’s affirmation of the Board of Tax Review’s decision carries several implications. For Madison County, it represents a successful defense of its property tax assessment practices and a validation of the assessor’s valuation expertise. This outcome is crucial for maintaining the county’s tax base, which is essential for funding local services such as schools, infrastructure, and public safety. The rejection of Nestle’s substantial reduction request helps prevent a significant loss of potential tax revenue.
For Nestle, the decision means continued adherence to the higher property tax assessment. While the company has the right to pursue further appeal, the Tax Court’s ruling suggests a strong legal foundation for the assessor’s position. The financial impact on Nestle is the ongoing obligation to pay taxes based on the $55 million assessment rather than the lower figure it proposed.
The case also highlights the importance of robust appraisal methodologies and the effective application of Indiana’s tax laws. The Burden Shifting Statute, in particular, plays a critical role in tax appeals, and its application in this instance underscores the need for taxpayers to provide comprehensive and persuasive evidence when challenging assessments. The fact that the assessor’s appraiser’s analysis was deemed more persuasive suggests that a detailed, data-driven approach, considering both physical assets and market dynamics, is key to prevailing in such disputes.
Broader Context and Industry Trends
The Nestle facility in Anderson is a significant part of the local industrial landscape, having been operational for over a decade. Its role in producing coffee creamers and beverages places it within the broader food and beverage manufacturing sector, an industry often subject to scrutiny regarding property valuations due to its substantial infrastructure requirements and evolving consumer demands.
The mention of declining dairy sales and the rise of plant-based alternatives by the county appraisal team points to a larger economic trend affecting many food production facilities. Companies in this sector must not only contend with operational costs and market competition but also with how shifts in consumer preferences impact the long-term value and marketability of their physical assets. This dynamic can create complexities in property tax assessments, as valuations must reflect not only current conditions but also future market potential.
The successful defense of the assessment by Assessor Davis and the Nexus Group demonstrates the importance of proactive tax management and a deep understanding of appraisal principles. The lack of attorney fees for the county further underscores the efficiency and effectiveness of their approach.
The Path Forward
Nestle’s decision on whether to appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court will be a critical next step. Such an appeal would focus on legal interpretations and precedents, rather than the factual evidence presented to the lower bodies. The Supreme Court’s review would be limited to questions of law.
In the meantime, the Indiana Tax Court’s ruling stands as a definitive statement on the validity of the property tax assessment for the Nestle facility. This outcome reinforces the established assessment practices and the legal framework governing property taxation in Indiana, providing a degree of certainty for both local government revenue streams and the business community. The ongoing operation of the Nestle plant and its contribution to the Anderson economy remain significant, regardless of the outcome of this specific tax dispute. The case serves as a reminder of the intricate interplay between business operations, property valuation, and the legal system in shaping local economic landscapes.
