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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT