ILNews

Common carrier entitled to more tax exemptions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Wabash-based company that relocates oversized factory machinery won a partial victory in the Indiana Tax Court Tuesday. Judge Martha Wentworth ordered the Indiana State Department of Revenue to reassess the company’s tax obligations after finding some property should be considered exempt.

 Wendt LLC provides its relocation services within a transportation process that includes four operational phases – project planning, pre-transport preparations, transportation and reassembly. Wendt sought to recover the sales and use tax remitted on purchases made during the 2001 to 2004 tax years, claiming they were exempt. The revenue department denied Wendt’s claims, finding most of the purchases were partially or fully taxable.

In analyzing whether Wendt’s property is necessary and integral to its integrated public transportation process, which allows it to qualify for the exemption, Wentworth partially affirmed the revenue department. The tax judge agreed that property used in preparing estimates for potential customers is not necessary and integral to Wendt’s public transportation process, nor are the reassembly services as they are a convenience for its customers. She also agreed that property used for lawn care is not entitled to the public transportation sales and use tax exemption.

Wentworth found that property used to plan transportation routes, obtain permits, and disassemble, load and secure the machinery onto trucks for transport are necessary and integral to Wendt’s public transportation process, as well as the property used to transport and escort the machinery.

Warehouse storage and transportation of machinery to third-party locations for repair services also fall within the scope of public transportation, she concluded in Wendt, LLP v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, 02T10-0701-TA-2.

Wendt was able to show that it predominately uses the tangible property at issue in providing public transportation, so Wentworth ordered the department of revenue to make the necessary determinations regarding the tax exemption in accordance with this opinion.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT