ILNews

Justices vacate review of voided tax warrants in 'puppy mill' case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court on Tuesday vacated an order granting review in a case that concluded tax agencies and the Indiana attorney general’s office overstepped their authority by issuing jeopardy tax warrants to seize animals from an alleged puppy mill in Harrison County.

Justices unanimously vacated a transfer order from the Indiana Tax Court in Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Virginia Garwood, et al., No. 82S10-1203-TA-171. Justices previously granted transfer and heard oral arguments earlier this month, but Chief Justice Brent Dickson wrote that “review was improvidently granted” in ordering the appeal as final.

The appeal brought by Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller sought to overturn a tax court ruling against the Department of Revenue in August by Tax Judge Martha Wentworth in Virginia and Kristin Garwood v. Indiana Department of Revenue, No.82T10-0906-TA-29.

The attorney general's public information officer Bryan Corbin said the state has other avenues it can pursue to collect unpaid taxes, and noted the Virginia and Kristin Garwood pleaded guilty in May 2010 to Class D felony charges of failing to pay sales.

“Tax evasion and fraud are against the law and will subject the offender to potential civil and criminal penalties by the Department of Revenue, the Attorney General’s Office, and the local prosecutor’s office,” Corbin said in a statement. “The State will not tolerate businesses that gain an unfair economic advantage over their competitors by willfully failing to pay their taxes. The Court’s decision not to hear the case does not mean that the Garwoods are relieved of their tax burden to the State. We respect the decision of the Court.”

Corbin said the order set no precedent and applied only the to Garwood case.

The attorney for the Garwoods had not returned a message left by IL deadline.

The justices let stand Wentworth’s ruling against what the attorney general had dubbed the “Al Capone” approach to take down what it described as illegal puppy mill operations.

The case goes back to June 2009, when a mother and daughter were charged after a raid on their dairy farm that involved police, representatives of the attorney general’s office, department of revenue and about 60 animal rescue workers.

The state had gone to the Garwoods’ residence to serve the jeopardy tax assessments and demanded the family pay about $142,368 immediately or their personal property would be seized. When they couldn’t pay, 244 dogs and puppies were seized. The animals, some of which tested positive for disease, were sold by the state to the Humane Society for a total $300.

The tax court granted summary judgment in the Garwoods’ favor and voided the Garwoods’ jeopardy assessments. Wentworth ruled that lawmakers narrowly defined the circumstances in which jeopardy tax warrants may be issued.

Wentworth wrote that one of four circumstances must exist to execute jeopardy tax warrants: that a person intends to quickly leave the state, remove property from the state, conceal property in the state, or do any other act that would jeopardize the collection of taxes. She ruled there was no evidence that those circumstances existed.

The Garwoods eventually pleaded guilty to failing to pay 2007 to 2009 sales tax for the puppy-breeding and selling operation in Mauckport.

The state alleged the Garwoods were concealing the puppies to avoid being taxed, citing Virginia Garwood’s refusal to allow Harrison County Animal Control on her property at one point after a consumer complained she was hiding the operation.

But Wentworth disagreed, finding it was not reasonable to infer that Virginia Garwood’s intent was to conceal property to avoid paying taxes because one would not normally expect an animal control officer to be involved with tax collection matters. Wentworth also dismissed the state’s arguments that the Garwoods’ purchase of breeding animals in bulk was speculative as far as a way for them to conceal the individual sales of the dog operation.

While the Garwoods may not have been properly reporting and paying taxes, the evidence doesn’t prove they were intending not to pay or trying to thwart collection in any way, the judge determined.

Citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling from 2002 about jeopardy assessments, Wentworth noted that those tax tools should be issued as part of the state’s “power of the purse” and not its “power of the sword” in punishing crimes.



 

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. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT