ILNews

Court sides with racinos in tax dispute with state

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal bankruptcy court has sided with two Indiana racinos in a dispute over their tax burdens, a ruling that could reduce the total amount they pay into state coffers by as much as $30 million per year.

In his ruling Wednesday in U.S. bankruptcy court in Delaware, Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon agreed with Indiana Live’s attorneys that the state is unfairly taxing the Shelbyville racetrack and casino on money it doesn’t get to keep. Hoosier Park, the state’s other racino in Anderson that recently emerged from bankruptcy, joined in the case in August and also will reap the benefit of the ruling.

Indiana Live, which is in the midst of Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization, appealed to the court in late July to consider whether the Indiana Department of Revenue is correctly interpreting state tax law.

The racinos have to set aside 15 percent of their revenue in horse-industry trust accounts that go toward purse money and care for older horses. Some of the money also goes toward tobacco cessation and, if it exceeds a state-mandated cap, a portion goes back to the state’s general fund. The racinos have been paying taxes on that portion of their revenue — a policy Indiana Live contends is unfair.

In a 27-page ruling, Shannon argued that Indiana Live is not subject to taxation on that 15 percent because the racino is a “mere conduit” and does not control the money.

“The debtor merely collects the funds and passes them along, and thus they are not included in the debtor’s income,” Shannon wrote. “Because the Graduated Tax is measured by the debtor’s income, the [15 percent] cannot be included in that tax.”

In its initial appeal to the court, Indiana Live attorneys projected that it could save it about $15 million annually in taxes, a figure that would be doubled if applied to both racinos.

“We are pleased with the court’s decision and are gratified that the correct legal result was reached,” David Suess, a Bose, McKinney & Evans attorney representing Indiana Live, wrote in an email.

It’s not clear whether the state will appeal the decision. An Indiana Department of Revenue spokesman said staffers would review the ruling Thursday.
 

This story originally ran in the Oct. 27, 2011, IBJ Daily, a sister publication to Indiana Lawyer.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT