Excise tax allowed on couple's marijuana

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Tax Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Indiana Department of State Revenue in a controlled-substance excise-tax case, ruling Monday that charging the tax does not apply to Indiana's joinder and successive prosecution statutes.

In John David Harrison and Jennifer A. Harrison v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, No.49T10-0409-TA-44, the Harrisons appealed the final determination of the Department of State Revenue, which assessed them with a controlled-substance excise tax (CSET) on the nearly 6,500 grams of marijuana police found in their home. Both John and Jennifer entered plea agreements with the state, in which the state agreed to dismiss criminal charges against them if they completed the agreement's terms. Jennifer was to submit to random drug testing, pay a fine, and not commit any criminal offenses for a year. John received a fine and probation.

Nine months later, after the department received written notice from the Fayette County prosecutor about the plea agreements, the department assessed the CSET against Harrisons for nearly $50,000; the department collected $1,501.75 from the Harrisons. In Sept. 2004, the Harrisons filed an original tax appeal and both sides filed for summary judgment.

The Harrisons argued that they couldn't be assessed the CSET because they were already charged criminally and applying the CSET would be double jeopardy. They also argued the Indiana joinder and successive prosecution statutes apply to CSET proceedings, and CSET assessment is barred because those proceedings were initiated subsequent to their criminal prosecutions.

Judge Thomas Fisher disagreed with the Harrisons' argument. Unless the Indiana General Assembly has defined something as a crime, then an individual's conduct cannot constitute a crime, and the General Assembly has not "exercised such authority with respect to the CSET," he wrote in the opinion.

The CSET is intended to be an addition to any criminal penalties under Indiana Code 35-48-4 and is primarily civil in nature. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the state.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit