has already dismissed Walker's claims for the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. No party, however, can confer subject matter jurisdiction on this Court. Lake County Council v. State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs, 706 N.E.2d 270, 274 (Ind.Tax Ct.1999), reversed on other grounds. Moreover, were the Court to hold otherwise, it would nullify the forty-five day time limit for initiating an original tax appeal of a State Board final determination of a 133 Petition. This Court presumes that the legislature did not intend to enact a nullity when it provided for the forty-five-day time limit for initiating an original tax appeal from a State Board final determination under Indiana Code Section 6-1.1-15-5(d)(1). See City Securities Corp. v. Dep't of State Revenue, 704 N.E.2d 1122, 1126 (Ind.Tax Ct.1998) (<HOLDING>); Hatcher v. Indiana State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs,
holding that a statute must not be given the one of two reasonable interpretations which will render it unconstitutional holding that the court may consider collateral evidence of the circumstances surrounding the execution of the agreement in determining whether the language of the agreement is unclear and if the evidence presented is so plain that no reasonable person could hold any way but one then the court may interpret the meaning as a matter of law holding that we are to apply the legislative intent underlying a statute and to construe the statute in such a way as to prevent absurdity holding that the court will not interpret the law in such a way as to render a jurisdictional statute a nullity holding that the language of the statute and the courts duty to apply the statute as written requires the court to interpret the statute to apply when the prisoner is sentenced without regard to the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated after the sentencing