ILNews

High court rules on issue preclusion in tax case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In an opinion handed down March 6, the Indiana Supreme Court had to decide whether a previous ruling barred the Indiana Department of Revenue from raising new contentions in support of a different method of allocation of income to the state.

In Miller Brewer Co. v. Indiana Department of Revenue, No. 49S00-0711-TA-553, Miller Brewing Co. argued that because of a previous ruling, Miller Brewing Co. v. Ind. Dept. of State Revenue (Miller I), 831 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2005), the Department of Revenue is bound by that ruling under the doctrine of issue preclusion.

Miller I deals with the company's 1994, 1995, and 1996 Indiana tax returns and ruled Miller was entitled to a refund of the taxes it paid for sales in which the customer picked up its product outside of Indiana or pickup by a carrier because these sales weren't allocable to Indiana.

In the instant case, the same issue is being challenged - whether sales to Indiana customers are allocated to Indiana if the customer arranged for a common carrier to pick up the product at a facility in another state - but for the tax years of 1997-1999. The department denied Miller's request for a refund of those types of sales claiming the state's sales factor was based on a "destination rule" which allowed the state to treat sales of products picked up by common carriers for delivery to Indiana as sales derived from this state. Miller appealed to the Indiana Tax Court claiming that issue preclusions barred the department from denying a refund for those sales. The case is on appeal to the high court solely on the question of issue preclusion.

The Supreme Court has yet to determine whether or to what extent issue preclusion applies in tax cases. The Tax Court had held that issue preclusion is generally not applicable in tax cases, but the high court didn't address the issue in a review of the decision. The Supreme Court held that the department's new arguments in support of its "destination rule" aren't precluded by Miller I.

Even though the issue presented by Miller's claim for a refund for the years of 1997-1999 was identical to the issue in Miller I, appeals from final determinations of the Department of State Revenue are to be heard de novo by the Tax Court, wrote Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. The Tax Court wasn't bound by the evidence or the issues raised at the administrative level and not barred from considering this new issue, he wrote.

Miller claims this is a new argument, not a new fact, and can't reopen the issue of law already determined between two parties, but the Supreme Court thought that in tax cases, the principle should be relaxed.

"If failure to raise an omitted argument can forever preclude the Department from re-litigating a legal issue, the state is in effect barred by the omission of its agents who generally do not bind the government by a mistake of law," he wrote. "We have also noted the concerns for equity in taxation and for potential competitive effects that perpetuating a legal rule for one taxpayer can produce."

For the purposes of this appeal, the Supreme Court found sufficient that the relevant equities of the interpretations of the statute and regulation weren't presented in Miller I.

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT