ILNews

Tax Court allows University of Phoenix to depose former revenue commissioner

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The University of Phoenix Inc. can depose the former commissioner of the Indiana Department of State Revenue in a case related to the school’s income taxes after the Indiana Tax Court found that the former commissioner did not warrant a protective order to prevent him from testifying.

In November 2014, the University of Phoenix initiated a tax appeal alleging that the Indiana Department of State Revenue’s assessment of an additional gross income tax and interest for the period between Aug. 31, 2009, and Aug. 31, 2011, violated state statutes regulating sourcing provision for service revenue. The university claimed that the department had erred in computing its alleged tax liability by sourcing some of its online tuition service revenue to the state based on a market or customer-based test, not a costs-of-performance test as required by state law.

During discovery, the department filed a discovery enforcement motion in October 2016 that asked the Indiana Tax Court to bar or reschedule a deposition of former department commissioner Michael Alley scheduled for Oct. 28. The court quashed the subpoena, but advised that he could be deposed at a later date.

The school again subpoenaed Alley to appear for deposition on Nov. 29. The Department of Revenue responded with a motion for protective order, arguing that such an order was necessary to protect Alley from “burdensome and oppressive” deposition.

Further, the state agency argued that University of Phoenix had already deposed three other witnesses, obtained testimony on the same topics it would ask Alley about, and admitted it would not question him about the actual issues in the case. Instead, the school planned to depose Alley on the 2014 Tax Competitiveness and Simplification Report, the department’s interpretation of the costs-of-performance sourcing test, its studies and reports related to that test, and its studies and reports related to market or customer-based sourcing.

But in her denial of the department’s motion Monday, Tax Court Judge Martha Blood Wentworth wrote that Alley’s deposition would be relevant to the case because his responses could contain answers related to the question of whether the department could legally use market or customer-based sourcing tests in sourcing the school’s online tuition service revenue.

Additionally, Wentworth wrote that the department’s other witnesses had provided little information on the topics the school planned to depose Alley on, so his deposition could provide additional information.

Finally, the judge pointed out that because Alley is the retired commissioner, he is no longer the high-ranking official in the department who would generally be protected from depositions, according to Hunt v. State, 546 N.E.2d 1249, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989).

The case is The University of Phoenix, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, 49T10-1411-TA-00065.

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. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT