ILNews

Tax court orders USUT refund

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Department of State Revenue erred in concluding that a natural gas-fired power plant in Terre Haute was subject to the Utility Services Use Tax, ruled the Indiana Tax Court Wednesday.

The tax court released two opinions with the same cause number, Mirant Sugar Creek, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, No. 71T10-0803-TA-18, in which the court addressed three issues: the department’s motion to strike in its entirety the affidavit of Mirant Sugar Creek’s senior tax analyst and e-mails between her and the tax analyst with the State Revenue department; if Mirant obtained a ruling from the department in those e-mails providing the company wasn’t subject to the USUT; and whether Mirant’s purchases of natural gas in July 2006 were subject to the USUT.

Mirant purchases natural gas from an out-of-state vendor, which it uses to produce electricity that it sells to an out-of-state customer who resells the electricity to its customers.

In August 2006, the department and Mirant exchanged e-mails about whether the company was subject to the USUT. Mirant paid the tax in July 2006, but didn’t pay it any more because it believed it shouldn’t be subject to it. It filed a claim for a refund, which the department denied.

In a not-for-publication opinion, Tax Judge Thomas Fisher denied the department’s motion to strike the affidavit and e-mails. In the for publication opinion, Judge Fisher determined that the department didn’t rule that Mirant did not have to pay the USUT. The e-mails exchanged indicate that Mirant sought a generic opinion as to whether a generator’s natural gas purchases were subject to the tax. There is also no indication that the e-mails between the parties were published in the Indiana Register. When the department is to be bound by the ruling it issues, it must be published in the register.

Although Judge Fisher denied Mirant’s cross-motion for summary judgment on that issue, he ruled in favor of the company that its natural gas purchases in July 2006 weren’t subject to the USUT. The judge examined the part of the relevant statute that says the retail consumption of utility services in Indiana is exempt from the USUT if the “gross receipts from the transaction aren’t taxable under Indiana Code 6-2.3-3 and the utility services are consumed for the purposes for which the gross receipts were excluded from taxation.”

In 2006, the statute provided that gross receipts don’t include a wholesale sale to another generator or reseller of utility services; the statute was amended in 2008 to provide a sale of utility services is a wholesale sale if the utility services are natural gas and the buyer consumes the natural gas in the direct production of electricity to be sold by the buyer.

“The General Assembly’s 2008 amendment of the statute clarifies what transactions are to be considered wholesale sales with respect to the purchase of utility services for consumption,” he wrote. “It is for this reason, that the Court finds the General Assembly, through its 2008 amendment of the statute, simply clarified its original intent.”

Mirant was generating and selling electricity to others, and purchased natural gas in order to generate electricity to sell to another entity. As such, Mirant’s purchases of natural gas weren’t subject to the USUT pursuant to I.C. sections 6-2.3-3-5 and 6-2.3-5.5-4(2).

Judge Fisher ordered the department to refund the USUT taxes Mirant paid for July 2006.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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