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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT