ILNews

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.”

 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT