ILNews

IBA: Indiana Patent Owners Not Interested in Saving Money?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Cedric A. D’Hue, D’Hue Law, LLC

Indiana Code § 6-3-2-21.7 aims to encourage innovation by giving Indiana entrepreneurs and small businesses a break on Indiana state income tax. Several articles and blog posts initially notified the public about this unique Indiana tax benefit. A recent posting argued that all indications suggest this law is underutilized, essentially saying that Indiana patent owners are leaving money on the table. While I agree with some of the initial indications, I am encouraged by increased use of the law.

In my devotion to this law, I researched Indiana-based patents which may qualify for the Indiana patent income tax exemption. My search criteria involved identifying U.S. utility patents issued in the year 2008 to at least one Indiana individual or Indiana based business. My search criteria sought to exclude patents owned by large Indiana businesses or non-Indiana based businesses.

From this labor of love, my informal research identified two hundred and thirty seven (237) relevant Indiana based patents. It is reasonable to hypothesize that the law is underutilized when there are 237 potentially relevant patents and only ten Indiana taxpayers taking advantage of the law.

There are several reasons why so many patents might qualify for the exemption but only ten Indiana taxpayers took advantage of the law. First, it is unknown how many Indiana patent owners are aware of the tax law advantage. Second, I don’t know if each of the ten Indiana taxpayers utilized one or more patents when claiming their exemption.

Several factors might cause Indiana patent owners to not take advantage of this tax law. Not all U.S. patents immediately generate income. Another reason could be the cost associated with compliance of this law. For example, determination of fair market value of the licensing fees or other income generated from the sale of a product covered by the patent could easily exceed the tax savings provided by the first years of patent income. Intangible asset valuation firms may choose to charge $7,500 to $8,000 for an uncertified patent valuation and $20,000 to $25,000 for a certified patent valuation. A third reason is there can be a several year lag between filing a patent application and issuance of a U.S. patent. After notification about this unique tax benefit, Indiana entrepreneurs or small business owners may have filed for patent protection but have yet to receive an issued U.S. utility patent.

As illustrated in the Table, the sum of claimed exemptions almost doubled from 2008 to 2009 during one of the most challenging eIBA-chart-2col.jpgconomic environments since The Great Depression. The increase has been encouraging. In my opinion the almost doubling indicates increased utilization in this unique Indiana tax benefit. I am interested to see if a pattern emerges and the increase continues upward for 2010.

In conclusion, the initial number of Indiana taxpayers utilizing this unique tax benefit seems to be small. Immediate and optimal use of this law would provide maximum benefit. Realistically, we may not see the full impact of this unique Indiana law for several years. Let us make the most of this opportunity by: (1) ensuring that all Indiana entrepreneurs and small business owners are aware of this exemption, (2) increasing our reporting on this law and continuing to evaluate its benefit to Indiana, and (3) assisting Indiana patent owners to take advantage of this unique tax benefit.•

Cedric D’Hue is a patent attorney and sole member of D’Hue Law LLC (www.dhuelaw.com). The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.
 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT