ILNews

Tax exemption doesn't apply to hotel utilities

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court was split today in its ruling on whether a hotel was entitled to a sales tax exemption on utilities it purchased during 2004 and 2005. The majority held the exemption that allows hotels to skip paying sales tax on tangible personal property - soap and shampoo - used by guests, doesn't extend to utilities because the hotel, and not the guests, uses those utilities.

The issue arose in Indiana Department of Revenue v. Kitchin Hospitality, LLC, No. 49S10-0808-TA-474, after the Indiana Tax Court held for the years at issue, the utilities consumed in Kitchin Hospitality's hotels guest rooms qualified for the tangible personal property exemption.

Indiana Code Section 6-2.5-5-35 was amended in 1992 to exempt hotels from paying sales tax on tangible items used or consumed by guests. The 1992 exemption, which the opinion refers to as the Section 35 Exemption, didn't define "tangible personal property." In 2003, while adopting the "Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement" (SSUTA), the legislature included a definition of it in I.C. Section 6-2.5-1-27. The 2003 definition defined tangible personal property to include electricity, water, gas, steam, and pre-written computer software. The language of the 1992 exemption wasn't changed until 2007 when the legislature specified that the exemption doesn't apply to electricity, water, gas, or steam transactions. The change came after this litigation began.

The majority analyzed the language of the 1992 exemption differently than the Tax Court, which concluded the language of the exemption didn't require a hotel guest to directly consume the utilities. The high court ruled tangible personal property must be used up or otherwise consumed during the occupation of the rooms and must be used up or consumed by a guest. Not reading it in this manner could lead to cleaning supplies or the water used to clean the hotel sheets to become exempt from sales tax, wrote Justice Frank Sullivan for the majority.

"Reading the 2007 amendment to the Section 35 Exemption as a clarification of the law is consistent with the purpose of Indiana's adoption of the (Streamlined Sales Tax Project) and its model provisions - to simplify and modernize the administration and collection of the state's sales and use taxes," he wrote. "Thus the Legislature in all likelihood enacted the definition of "tangible personal property" in I.C. § 6-2.5-1-27 to bring the state into compliance with the SSUTA, not to render utilities eligible for the Section 35 Exemption."

The hotels had single electric, water, and gas meters for the entire facility and the hotels didn't monitor each guest's usage. The utilities are used up or consumed in the guest rooms whether they are occupied or vacant, so they are used up by the hotel and not the guests, wrote the justice.

The majority reversed the Indiana Tax Court's decision and affirmed the Indiana Department of Revenue's decision to deny Kitchin exemptions from sales tax under I.C. Section 6-2.5-5-35.

Justice Brent Dickson dissented in a separate opinion with which Justice Robert Rucker concurred, believing the facts and law of the case warrant the deferral to the determination of the Tax Court which was created to "consolidated tax-related litigation in one court of expertise," Justice Dickson wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Supreme Court Not Tax Savvy
    Well the Indiana Supreme Court just proved that its tax expertise is sorely lacking. Why is it not apparent to them that when the legislature change this applicable statute when the taxpayer filed in court, that the law must have been flawed. What would the ordinary person read here? Shame on them. When the legislature changed the definition to comply with the SST, how hard is it to read through the current law and find all instances of "Tangible personal property?" Then if that instance was not to be exempt, adjust it then. While that is what they "meant" to do, they did not and the Supreme Court in essence, sanctioned that.

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. All the lawyers involved in this don't add up to a hill of beans; mostly yes-men punching their tickets for future advancement. REMF types. Window dressing. Who in this mess was a real hero? the whistleblower that let the public know about the torture, whom the US sent to Jail. John Kyriakou. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/us/ex-officer-for-cia-is-sentenced-in-leak-case.html?_r=0 Now, considering that Torture is Illegal, considering that during Vietnam a soldier was court-martialed and imprisoned for waterboarding, why has the whistleblower gone to jail but none of the torturers have been held to account? It's amazing that Uncle Sam's sunk lower than Vietnam. But that's where we're at. An even more unjust and pointless war conducted in an even more bogus manner. this from npr: "On Jan. 21, 1968, The Washington Post ran a front-page photo of a U.S. soldier supervising the waterboarding of a captured North Vietnamese soldier. The caption said the technique induced "a flooding sense of suffocation and drowning, meant to make him talk." The picture led to an Army investigation and, two months later, the court martial of the soldier." Today, the US itself has become lawless.

  2. "Brain Damage" alright.... The lunatic is on the grass/ The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.... The lunatic is in the hall/ The lunatics are in my hall/ The paper holds their folded faces to the floor/ And every day the paper boy brings more/ And if the dam breaks open many years too soon/ And if there is no room upon the hill/ And if your head explodes with dark forbodings too/ I'll see you on the dark side of the moon!!!

  3. It is amazing how selectively courts can read cases and how two very similar factpatterns can result in quite different renderings. I cited this very same argument in Brown v. Bowman, lost. I guess it is panel, panel, panel when one is on appeal. Sad thing is, I had Sykes. Same argument, she went the opposite. Her Rooker-Feldman jurisprudence is now decidedly unintelligible.

  4. November, 2014, I was charged with OWI/Endangering a person. I was not given a Breathalyzer test and the arresting officer did not believe that alcohol was in any way involved. I was self-overmedicated with prescription medications. I was taken to local hospital for blood draw to be sent to State Tox Lab. My attorney gave me a cookie-cutter plea which amounts to an ALCOHOL-related charge. Totally unacceptable!! HOW can I get my TOX report from the state lab???

  5. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

ADVERTISEMENT