ILNews

Tax Court rejects company’s claim it was a passive investor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A mobile telecommunications group was unable to convince the Indiana Tax Court Tuesday that it was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of whether it should have received a refund for paid adjusted gross income tax.

Vodafone Americas Inc. and Vodafone Holdings LLC, incorporated in Delaware, appealed the denial of its claim for refund for taxable years ending March 31, 2005-2008. Vodafone asked the Tax Court to answer whether the income it received as a partner of a general partnership with Cellco, which did business as Verizon Wireless in Indiana, was income derived from sources within Indiana.

Vodafone sought the tax refund because it believed it had erroneously attributed a portion of its income to Indiana. Indiana Code requires it to pay a tax on the part of its adjusted gross income derived from sources within Indiana. Since it is not commercially domiciled in Indiana, Vodafone contended that its income – dividends it received from investing in Cellco – is not derived from sources within the state and therefore not taxable.

“The critical question is whether the income Vodafone received as a partner of Cellco had the character of operational income or investment income because if it was operational income, it was not income in the form of ‘dividends from investments’ under Indiana Code § 6-3-2-2(g),” Senior Judge Thomas Fisher wrote in Vodafone Americas Inc. and Vodafone Holdings LLC v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 49T10-1002-TA-7.

“The mere fact that Vodafone was a partner in a general partnership gives its income from that partnership the character of operational income. As such, Vodafone’s income is not income in the form of ‘dividends from investments’ under Indiana Code § 6-3-2-2.2(g).”

Vodafone argued that despite the fact it was in a general partnership, a “lack of control” placed it in essentially the same position as being a limited partner of, or a true “passive investor” in Cellco. But Vodafone participates in Cellco’s management by appointing members to the board of representatives, by appointing Cellco’s chief financial officer and it holds certain veto rights regarding business.

“Consequently, Vodafone’s ‘lack of control’ by reason of its minority interest is insufficient to show that it does not participate in the management of Cellco and thus that it was a mere ‘passive investor’ in Cellco,” Fisher wrote. He denied summary judgment and noted the court will schedule a case management conference by separate order. The appeal presented an unspecified alternative issue that wasn’t addressed in the summary judgment motion, which can now proceed to trial.

 

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. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT