Tax court judge rejects request to compel further discovery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After previously allowing the deposition of the former commissioner of the Indiana Department of State Revenue, the Indiana Tax Court rejected the University of Phoenix’s requests to compel further discovery, writing that the additional discovery likely would not reveal admissible evidence.

In The University of Phoenix, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, 49T10-1411-TA-65, the University of Phoenix filed a tax appeal in November 2014 challenging the Indiana Department of Revenue’s decision to source some of its online tuition revenue using a market-based or customer-based method, rather than an income-producing activity method, for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 tax years.

During discovery, the university served the state department with requests for all documents related to a proposed amendment to Indiana Code 6-3-2-2(f) as contained in the original version of the 2015 House Bill 1349. The department objected to that and other similar requests by the university and admitted at a hearing that it had withheld a document related to HB 1349 because it was not specific to the University of Phoenix.

Then in July 2016, the university sought all documents and communications related to the Tax Competitiveness and Simplification Report of September 2014 and a presentation on the report.  The department also rejected those requests, but did provide some documents in response.

Finally, in October 2016, the university deposed the department’s three 30(B)(6) witnesses, but after two of the witnesses explained that they were only generally aware of the bill, report and presentation, the university questioned the integrity of the discovery process. 

The school then filed a motion to compel discovery requests, claiming that the department’s responses to its previous requests impaired its ability to prepare for a court-ordered trial date in March 2017. The department, however, argued that the university’s discovery requests “are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of any evidence admissible at trial.”

Indiana Tax Court Judge Martha Blood Wentworth granted the university’s motion to depose the former department commissioner, Michael Alley, last November.  However, Wentworth noted in a Monday opinion that although she previously held that deposing the former department commission regarding the bill, the report and the presentation were relevant to the case’s discovery, “that relevancy determination was made for the sole purpose of deciding whether to allow the former Commissioner to be deposed.”

Further, Wentworth wrote that after deposing the former commissioner and the department’s witnesses, “the University has uncovered no smoking gun.” Thus, the additional discovery requests for events after the 2009, 2010 and 2011 tax years likely won’t reveal admissible evidence, so “the University’s failure to reveal how information about HB 1349, the Report, and the Presentation could lead to the discovery of evidence admissible at trial brings discovery on those matters to an end,” she said.

However, Wentworth also noted that “zealously defending one’s client in our adversarial system does not include a rope-a-dope attitude toward discovery nor should it come at the expense of true cooperation.” Thus, she ordered the department to provide the previously-withheld documentation regarding HB 1349 to the university within seven days.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. @BryanJBrown, You are totally correct. I have no words, you nailed it.....

  2. You have not overstated the reality of the present situation. The government inquisitor in my case, who demanded that I, on the record, to choose between obedience to God's law or man's law, remains on the BLE, even an officer of the BLE, and was recently renewed in her contract for another four years. She has a long history in advancing LGBQT rights. THINK WITH ME: What if a currently serving BLE officer or analogous court official (ie discplinary officer) asked an atheist to affirm the Existence, or demanded a transsexual to undergo a mental evaluation to probe his/her alleged mindcrime? That would end a career. The double standard is glaring, see the troubling question used to ban me for life from the Ind bar right here: (see page 8 of 21) Again, what if I had been a homosexual rights activist before law school rather than a prolife activist? A gay rights activist after law school admitted to the SCOTUS and Kansas since 1996, without discipline? A homosexual rights activist who had argued before half the federal appellate courts in the country? I am pretty certain that had I been that LGBQT activist, and not a pro-life activist, my passing of the Indiana bar exam would have rendered me an Indiana attorney .... rather than forever banished. So yes, there is a glaring double standard. And some are even beyond the reach of constitutional and statutory protections. I was.

  3. Historically speaking pagans devalue children and worship animals. How close are we? Consider the ruling above plus today's tidbit from the politically correct high Court:

  4. The father is a convicted of spousal abuse. 2 restaining orders been put on him, never made any difference the whole time she was there. The time he choked the mother she dropped the baby the police were called. That was the only time he was taken away. The mother was suppose to have been notified when he was released no call was ever made. He made his way back, kicked the door open and terrified the mother. She ran down the hallway and locked herself and the baby in the bathroom called 911. The police came and said there was nothing they could do (the policeman was a old friend from highschool, good ole boy thing).They told her he could burn the place down as long as she wasn't in it.The mother got another resataining order, the judge told her if you were my daughter I would tell you to leave. So she did. He told her "If you ever leave me I will make your life hell, you don't know who your f!@#$%^ with". The fathers other 2 grown children from his 1st exwife havent spoke 1 word to him in almost 15yrs not 1 word.This is what will be a forsure nightmare for this little girl who is in the hands of pillar of the community. Totally corrupt system. Where I come from I would be in jail not only for that but non payment of child support. Unbelievably pitiful...

  5. dsm 5 indicates that a lot of kids with gender dysphoria grow out of it. so is it really a good idea to encourage gender reassignment? Perhaps that should wait for the age of majority. I don't question the compassionate motives of many of the trans-advocates, but I do question their wisdom. Likewise, they should not question the compassion of those whose potty policies differ. too often, any opposition to the official GLBT agenda is instantly denounced as "homophobia" etc.