ILNews

Justices divided on whether case should be before Tax Court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court split Thursday on whether the attorney general’s attempt to recover an erroneously issued “tax refund” to a company should proceed in state court or in the Indiana Tax Court.

Because of clerical errors, the Indiana Department of Revenue issued a refund check to Aisin Manufacturing for its 2001 taxes in the amount of $1,146,062 in September 2003. The Department of Revenue discovered the error in October 2005 when Aisin filed an amended return for the 2001 tax year. Aisin had paid the proper amount of taxes for that year. The Department of Revenue was unable to recover the money erroneously sent to Aisin, so the matter was referred to the attorney general.

The state, on behalf of taxpayers, filed the complaint against Aisin for unjust enrichment, theft, and constructive trust in Jackson Superior Court. The trial court granted Aisin’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, believing the matter was the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, finding whatever mistakes were made were “quintessentially tax matters.”

In State ex rel. Gregory F. Zoeller v. Aisin USA Manufacturing, Inc., No. 36S01-1009-CV-469, Justices Frank Sullivan, Steven David, and Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard disagreed, and found the state’s claims could proceed in Jackson Superior Court.

The majority opinion determined that the matter doesn’t “arise under” Indiana tax law as interpreted in State v. Sproles, 672 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind. 1996). They rejected the trial court’s conclusion that this case involves the collection of a tax because the dispute involved a tax payer and tax collector because if every case involving the Department of Revenue was intended to fall within the Tax Court’s exclusive jurisdiction, then the General Assembly could have said so, wrote Justice Sullivan.

This is essentially an accounting case and “to hold that this ‘refund,’ issued solely because of accounting or clerical errors, represents part of a tax would not serve the legislative purpose of ensuring the uniform interpretation and application of the tax laws because the tax laws are not implicated,” wrote the justice.

The majority held that a refund issued because of an accounting error and that has nothing to do with the interpretation or application of substantive tax law doesn’t revive the original tax liability, where such liability has already been discharged by the taxpayer’s full payment. Because such a refund is issued to a taxpayer owing no tax, the state has a claim for restitution.

“… although Indiana tax statutes provide the exclusive remedy for a taxpayer to recover an overpayment of taxes, we perceive no limitation imposed by the tax law on the State’s common-law claim for restitution in this case,” wrote Justice Sullivan.

The majority reversed the trial court and remanded for proceedings on the merits of the state’s claims.

Justice Robert Rucker dissented in a separate opinion in which Justice Brent Dickson joined. Justice Rucker wrote that it’s reasonable to conclude the state, believing it could not obtain relief in the Tax Court because of a statute of limitation, attempted an end-run and filed the action in Superior Court.

“Given the lengths to which the majority was required to analyze Aisin’s various tax filings and the resultant repercussions, I agree this is a tax case and would affirm the judgment of the trial court,” he wrote.

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT