In support of his argument, Jewell cites In re 2002 Lake County Tax Sale of Real Property with Delinquent Taxes or Special Assessments Tax I.D. #: 16-27-0122-0026, 818 N.E.2d 505, 509 (Ind.Ct.App.2004), which interpreted that section to mean a “trial court does not have the discretion to extend the period of redemption beyond the one-year limitation.” Id. However, “[e]quity has power, where necessary, to pierce rigid statutory rules to prevent injustice.” Swami, 841 N.E.2d at 1178. The trial court determined Powell was prejudicially misled by the incomplete information given to him by the Grant County Treasurer’s Office, and that determination supports piercing the statutory rules to prevent injustice. See Tajuddin v. Sandhu Petroleum Corp. No. 3, 921 N.E.2d 891, 895 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the
holding a corporation excused from a tax penalty when the sole people in charge of filing and paying taxes were embezzling funds from the corporation thus disabling the corporations ability to pay holding that taxes were a claim against the estate that had to be filed in probate court thus reversing an order requiring heirs to pay taxes on estate property because the district court did not have jurisdiction holding unemployment taxes accrued when employees were terminated not when the amount of compensation taxes are determinable holding trial court properly denied a petition for a tax deed when the property owners thought they were paying property taxes on an improved parcel of land but actually were paying taxes on a different unimproved parcel because of an assessment irregularity holding petitioner could not deduct real estate taxes imposed on property he did not own because these taxes were not imposed on him