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
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