ILNews

Tax Court: Company creates new tool, entitled to exemption

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court has ruled in favor of a Hammond company in its attempt to exempt certain equipment from the state’s sales and use taxes.

Hoosier Roll Shop Services LLC challenged the denial of the Indiana Department of State Revenue’s final determination denying it an exemption for equipment used and materials consumed in grinding and calibrating its mill customers’ work rolls during the 2007 and 2008 tax years. These work rolls create the proper thickness, flatness, surface texture and luster of the sheet product as it passes through them. The surfaces of the rolls must be ground and calibrated to certain specifications.

The parties’ motions for summary judgment present just one issue for the Tax Court to decide: whether Hoosier Roll produces a new good, thereby entitling it to the exemptions previously mentioned, when it grinds and calibrates work rolls. Hoosier Roll claimed that it does: it takes a work roll, a tool ground and calibrated for a certain use, and, through its grinding and calibration process, creates an entirely new tool for a different use (i.e., a remanufactured work roll). The department argued, however, that Hoosier Roll does not produce a new good, but instead provides a repair service that is designed merely to perpetuate the usable life of the work roll.

Senior Judge Thomas Fisher relied on the four questions outlined in Rotation Products Corporation v. Department of State Revenue, 690 N.E.2d 795 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1998), to determine whether a “remanufacturing” or “repairing” process produces a new product. Those questions are: What is the substantiality and complexity of the work done on the existing article and what are the physical changes to the existing article, including the addition of new parts?; How does the article’s value before and after the work compare?; How favorably does the performance of the “remanufactured” article compare with the performance of newly manufactured articles of its kind?; and Was the work performed contemplated as a normal part of the life cycle of the existing article?

Fisher determined that the answer to each of those four questions favors Hoosier Roll. It produces other tangible personal property when it grinds and calibrates its customers’ work rolls. As such, Fisher granted the company’s motion for summary judgment and denied summary judgment in favor of the Department of State Revenue in Hoosier Roll Shop Services, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, 49T10-1104-TA-29.


 

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT