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. 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