ILNews

High court tackles use-tax issue

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Supreme Court today ruled that a contribution by a parent corporation to the capital of its subsidiary is not automatically excluded from Indiana use tax.

At issue in Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC, No. 49S10-1010-TA-519, was whether the transfer of the riverboat from the parent company to its subsidiary corporation was a retail transaction under Indiana Code section 6-2.5-3-2(a).

Belterra Resort Indiana LLC is a Nevada corporation that owns and operates a hotel and riverboat casino in Switzerland County, Indiana. Pinnacle Entertainment Inc., a Delaware corporation, is Belterra’s parent company. Pinnacle contracted with Alabama Shipyard Inc. of Mobile, Ala., to purchase and construct the Miss Belterra riverboat in September 1999 at the cost of $34,689,719. Alabama Shipyard conveyed title and possession of the completed riverboat to Pinnacle in July 2000. Pinnacle paid no Alabama sales tax on this transaction. The following day, Pinnacle transferred title and possession of the riverboat to Belterra while in international waters off the Gulf of Mexico. The riverboat then headed to Indiana.

The Indiana Department of Revenue conducted a tax audit of Belterra in 2002 and issued a use-tax assessment against Belterra for $1,869,783 plus penalty and interest because of the  riverboat acquisition. Belterra protested the assessment, and after a hearing the department denied Belterra’s protest. Belterra filed an appeal with the Indiana Tax Court and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

The Tax Court granted Belterra’s motion for summary judgment and denied the state department’s motion. Belterra Resort Ind., LLC v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 900 N.E.2d 513, 517 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2009). The Tax Court ruled that Belterra was not subject to use tax on the riverboat acquisition because it was a contribution to capital and not the result of a retail transaction.

The high court noted the use tax is complementary to the sales tax because it ensures non-exempt transactions that have escaped sales tax liability are nonetheless taxed. Indiana’s use tax is primarily designed to reach out-of-state sales of tangible personal property that is subsequently used in Indiana, wrote Justice Robert Rucker for the majority, with which Chief Justice Randall Shepard and Justice Frank Sullivan concurred. Justice Theodore Boehm dissented in a separate opinion, with which Justice Brent Dickson concurred.

Belterra argued it is not subject to Indiana’s use tax because the riverboat was not acquired in a retail transaction because no consideration was given in exchange for the riverboat. Belterra also argued the transfer of the riverboat was made as a capital contribution with no consideration given.

The issue in this case is whether the transfer of the riverboat from Pinnacle to Belterra was done without either side receiving consideration. In an affidavit submitted in support of its motion for summary judgment Belterra declares as much, but whether consideration exists is a question of law for the court.

“… as we have discussed, the concept of consideration encompasses any benefit – however slight – accruing to the promisor or any detriment – however slight – borne by the promissee. We accept as true that Belterra paid no money to Pinnacle in acquiring the riverboat. But this does not resolve the question of whether the exchange lacked consideration. Was there any other benefit inuring to Pinnacle? Was there some detriment borne by Belterra?” wrote Justice Rucker.

The court used the step transaction doctrine to help analyze this issue, noting two separate tests have evolved within this doctrine: the end results test and the interdependence test.

The court applied the step doctrine to “collapse Pinnacle’s and Belterra’s various transactions, we thus treat the acquisition of Miss Belterra from the manufacturer as a retail transaction subject to Indiana use tax. I.C. § 6-2.5-3-2(a). As such, the purchase price paid to the manufacturer by Pinnacle constitutes the consideration required by the statute. I.C. § 6-2.5-4-1(a), (b).”

In his dissent, Justice Boehm noted that the majority adopted a definition of contribution to capital that incorrectly assumes a contribution to capital is for no consideration, and that the majority also uses contract law notions of consideration to conclude that Belterra’s transfer of the riverboat to its subsidiary was not a contribution to capital.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT