Justices reverse Tax Court in UPS case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court found that two reinsurance companies of the United Parcel Service are foreign companies that don’t do business within Indiana, so they aren’t exempt from Indiana adjusted gross income tax.

In Indiana Department of Revenue v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 49S10-1107-TA-417, UPS argued its two affiliated reinsurance companies – UPINSCO, formed under the laws of the U.S. Virgin Islands and UPS Re, formed under the laws of Bermuda – are subject to Indiana’s gross premium privilege tax statute, so they would be exempt from adjusted gross income tax here.

In Indiana, insurance companies are required to pay tax on earned premiums in lieu of state corporate income tax. The premium tax works like an excise tax allowing a foreign insurer to do business in Indiana, wrote Justice Robert Rucker.

UPS contracted with several companies to provide workers’ compensation insurance and liability insurance for damage to its packages, but UPINSCO and UPS Re ultimately insured UPS’s risks.

UPS sought to exclude in 2000 and 2001 from its federal taxable income the income of its affiliates UPINSCO and UPS Re. The Indiana Department of State Revenue disallowed the exclusion and claimed UPS underpaid taxes in 2001. The Indiana Tax Court granted summary judgment for UPS and denied the department’s motion. The Tax Court reasoned that because UPS was “subject to” the premium tax under Indiana Code 6-3-2-2.8(4), it was exempt from the adjusted gross income tax.

The justices concluded that the affiliates were not doing business in Indiana. The record shows – and the parties don’t dispute – that the reinsurance transactions took place between foreign companies as neither the primary insurers nor the affiliates are organized under the laws of Indiana, Rucker wrote.

“… even assuming UPINSCO and UPS Re reinsured Indiana risks, there is no evidence in the record before us that the reinsurance transactions took place in the State of Indiana,” he wrote. “Because this is a necessary condition in order to be ‘subject to’ the premium tax, UPS failed in its burden of establishing that it is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Because we are definitely and firmly convinced the Tax Court’s determination to the contrary is in error, we reverse the grant of summary judgment in favor of UPS and remand this cause for further proceedings.”



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This state's high court has spoken, the fair question is answered. Years ago the Seventh Circuit footnoted the following in the context of court access: "[2] Dr. Bowman's report specifically stated that Brown "firmly believes he is obligated as a Christian to put obedience to God's laws above human laws." Dr. Bowman further noted that Brown expressed "devaluing attitudes towards pharmacological or psycho-therapeutic mental health treatment" and that he made "sarcastic remarks devaluing authority of all types, especially mental health authority and the abortion industry." 668 F.3d 437 (2012) SUCH acid testing of statist orthodoxy is just and meet in Indiana. SUCH INQUISITIONS have been green lighted. Christians and conservatives beware.

  2. It was all that kept us from tyranny. So sad that so few among the elite cared enough to guard the sacred trust. Nobody has a more sacred obligation to obey the law than those who make the law. Sophocles No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor. Theodore Roosevelt That was the ideal ... here is the Hoosier reality: The King can do no wrong. Legal maxim From the Latin 'Rex non potest peccare'. When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal. Richard Nixon

  3. So men who think they are girls at heart can use the lady's potty? Usually the longer line is for the women's loo, so, the ladies may be the ones to experience temporary gender dysphoria, who knows? Is it ok to joke about his or is that hate? I may need a brainwash too, hey! I may just object to my own comment, later, if I get myself properly "oriented"

  4. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  5. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.