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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT