The purpose of the study was to determine which of the three selected taxes, incomes, sales, and property and combinations of the three selected taxes in each of the three selected taxation Models I, II, and III, produced the most equitable distribution of the tax burden upon the entire mean family total income group population in Indiana.Mean tax burden scores were computed for each tax and combination of taxes, income, sales, and property in each of the three selected taxation Models I, II, and III, and then compared to determine which of the three selected taxation Models I, II, or III produced the most of the tax burden upon the entire mean group population.One Group Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was used to statistically analyze four null hypotheses and twelve sub-hypotheses formulated to test if a statistically significant difference existed between the income, sales, property and combined tax burdens in each of the three selected taxation Models I, II, and III. None of the four null hypotheses were rejected.Findings of the study revealed that combined tax burdens in taxation Model III were larger than the observed mean income, sales, property and combined tax burdens in either taxation Model I and II. However, when statistically compared and analyzed no statistically significant differences were found to exist between the observed mean income, property, sales and combined tax burdens in each of the three taxation Models I, II, and III. Therefore, when compared, neither taxation Model I, II, or III produced the most equitable distribution of the income, property, sales or combined tax burden.The following conclusions were drawn from the findings with regard to the equitable distribution of the tax burden in each of the three selected taxation Models I, II, and III.1. A progressively graduated income tax was utilized in taxation Model III. A flat rate two percent income tax policy was utilized within taxation Model I, and a flat rate two percent income tax policy with an $8 per person sales tax credit was utilized within taxation Model III. As a result, the observed mean income tax burden in taxation Model III was larger (1.013) than the observed mean income tax burden in either taxation Model I (1.000), or taxation Model II (1.009). However, when the observed mean tax burden scores in taxation Models I, II, and III were statistically compared and analyzed, the observed mean income tax burdens in taxation Model I, II, and III were found not to be significantly different. The evidence suggests, then, that neither income tax policy utilized in taxation Models I, II, or III produced a significantly more equitable distribution of the income tax burden.2. Evidence presented and analyzed indicated that property tax relief measures utilized within taxation Model I reduced the statewide property tax rate. As a result, the observed mean property tax burden in taxation Model I was larger (.984), than the observed mean property tax burden (.977) in taxation Model II. Utilization of a "Modified Minnesota Circuit-Breaker Property Tax Relief Plan" in taxation Model III, however, produced a larger (.993) observed mean property tax burden than either taxation Model I or II.However, when the observed mean property tax burdens in taxation Models I, II, and III were statistically compared and analyzed, the finding was that the observed mean property tax burdens in taxation Model I, II, and III were not significantly different. The evidence suggests, then, that neither property tax policy utilized in taxation Models I, II, or III produced a significantly more equitable distribution of the property tax burden.3. Evidence presented in the review of literature indicated that the utilization of a state sales tax reduces the regressivity of the overall state tax structure. Furthermore, a progressive state income tax was reported to reduce the regressivity of the overall state tax structure even more than thein taxation Model III. As a result, observed mean combined tax burden (1.005) in taxation Model III was indeed larger than the observed mean combined tax burden in either taxation Model I (.977) or taxation Model II (.976). Once again, however, when the observed mean combined tax burdens in taxation Models I, II, and III were statistically compared and analyzed, no significant difference was to exist between the combined tax burdens in taxation Models I, II, and III. Therefore, evidence presented in the study suggests that neither combination of income, sales, and property tax policies in taxation Models I, II, or III produced a significantly more equitable distribution of the combined tax burden.4. The observed mean sales tax burden in taxation Models I, II, and III were very similar, .991, .991, and .993 respectively. When the observed mean sales tax burdens in taxation Models I, II, and III were statistically compared and analyzed, however, no statistically significant difference was found to exist, even though the sales tax rate in taxation Model I was doubled in order to fund property tax relief measures. The evidence, then, suggests that neither sales tax policy utilized in taxation Models I, II, or III produced a significantly more equitable distribution of the sales tax burden.