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. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  2. If the end result is to simply record the spoke word, then perhaps some day digital recording may eventually be the status quo. However, it is a shallow view to believe the professional court reporter's function is to simply report the spoken word and nothing else. There are many aspects to being a professional court reporter, and many aspects involved in producing a professional and accurate transcript. A properly trained professional steno court reporter has achieved a skill set in a field where the average dropout rate in court reporting schools across the nation is 80% due to the difficulty of mastering the necessary skills. To name just a few "extras" that a court reporter with proper training brings into a courtroom or a deposition suite; an understanding of legal procedure, technology specific to the legal profession, and an understanding of what is being said by the attorneys and litigants (which makes a huge difference in the quality of the transcript). As to contracting, or anti-contracting the argument is simple. The court reporter as governed by our ethical standards is to be the independent, unbiased individual in a deposition or courtroom setting. When one has entered into a contract with any party, insurance carrier, etc., then that reporter is no longer unbiased. I have been a court reporter for over 30 years and I echo Mr. Richardson's remarks that I too am here to serve.

  3. A competitive bid process is ethical and appropriate especially when dealing with government agencies and large corporations, but an ethical line is crossed when court reporters in Pittsburgh start charging exorbitant fees on opposing counsel. This fee shifting isn't just financially biased, it undermines the entire justice system, giving advantages to those that can afford litigation the most. It makes no sense.

  4. "a ttention to detail is an asset for all lawyers." Well played, Indiana Lawyer. Well played.

  5. I have a appeals hearing for the renewal of my LPN licenses and I need an attorney, the ones I have spoke to so far want the money up front and I cant afford that. I was wondering if you could help me find one that takes payments or even a pro bono one. I live in Indiana just north of Indianapolis.

ADVERTISEMENT