ILNews

Tax judge denies state's motion to dismiss

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court has denied the state’s motion to dismiss a mother and daughter’s challenge to the jeopardy tax assessments made against them after the state found they didn’t pay taxes on their sales of puppies.

The Indiana Attorney General’s Office and the Department of State Revenue investigated Virginia and Kristin Garwood’s business activities involving selling puppies and found that they weren’t remitting sales and income tax due on the sales. The department served the Garwoods with 16 jeopardy tax assessments demanding immediate payment. They didn’t pay and the dogs were seized and sold.

The department filed a verified petition for proceedings supplemental in Harrison Circuit Court; the Garwoods timely protested their assessments to the department shortly thereafter. The department wrote a letter to the Garwoods telling them that the relief they want was best available in Harrison Circuit Court. The Garwoods then asked the Tax Court for a judicial review of the final determination by the department and to enjoin the collection of the pending tax.

The department filed a motion to dismiss under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B), arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to state a claim upon relief can be granted, and that the same action was pending in another court.

In Virginia Garwood, et al. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue No. 82T10-0906-TA-29, the Tax Court denied all of the department’s 12(B) motions, finding its arguments that Indiana Dept. of Revenue v. Deaton (Deaton II), 755 N.E.2d 568 (Ind. 2001) controls and that there is no appealable final determination in this case to be misplaced. Deaton II is distinguishable from the instant case and it simply suggests that the jeopardy tax warrants at issue in this case have not attained the status of “judgments,” wrote Judge Thomas Fisher.

Also, the judge rejected the departments’ argument that the Garwoods’ failure to file a claim for a refund with the department precludes their challenge before the Tax Court. The department claimed that a taxpayer must first pay the taxes assessed, request a refund, and then if they don’t like the outcome, seek judicial review.

Indiana Code Section 6-8.1-5-3 is silent as to the manner by which a taxpayer may challenge the validity of a jeopardy assessment, but the Indiana Supreme Court has held that taxpayers may challenge jeopardy assessments through the administrative procedures provided under I.C. Section 6-8.1-5-1, he wrote. In addition, the department’s own regulation allows taxpayers to protest a jeopardy assessment within 20 days after the assessment is made.

“Consequently, through its argument, the Department attempts to eliminate one administrative path to the Tax Court when there are actually at least two,” wrote the judge. “This Court, however, will not sanction such actions.”

The department assessed the Garwoods with liability for income and sales taxes under I.C. Section 6-8.1-1-1. They timely protested those assessments in conformity with Indiana Code and the department sent a letter, without holding a hearing, telling the Garwoods the relief they seek was in the Harrison Circuit Court.

“Therefore, for purposes of this case, the Department’s letter constituted a final determination. The Garwoods’ action is an original tax appeal; therefore, the Court denies the Department’s 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss,” he wrote.

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT