ILNews

Tax judge shoots down 'Al Capone' approach

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a blow to the Indiana attorney general’s office, the state’s tax judge has shot down a legal theory that used jeopardy tax assessments to go after a purported puppy mill in Harrison County.

The ruling came late Friday in the case of Virginia and Kristin Garwood v. Indiana Department of Revenue, No.82T10-0906-TA-29. Tax Judge Martha Wentworth ruled against what the AG has dubbed the “Al Capone” approach to take down what it described as illegal puppy mill operations.

This case goes back to June 2009, when a mother and daughter from Harrison County were charged following a raid on their dairy farm. The state went to the Garwoods’ residence to serve the jeopardy tax assessments and demanded the family pay about $142,368 immediately or their personal property would be seized. When they couldn’t pay, police and animal rescue workers seized 244 dogs and puppies that were confined in squalid enclosures. The seized animals, some of testing positive for disease, were sold by the state to the Humane Society for a total $300.

The Garwoods eventually pleaded guilty to a felony charge of failing to pay 2007 to 2009 sales tax for the puppy-breeding and selling operation in Mauckport, Ind.

Indiana law didn’t offer the state a way to go after the Garwoods or similar tax delinquents, and the AG used the criminal tax evasion tool that had taken down 1930s crime boss Al Capone for not paying taxes on his operations. That method meant utilizing the Department of Revenue and its ability to issue jeopardy tax assessments, if at least one of four statutory circumstances were present.

The state has used this method multiple times in recent years, and the 16 warrants against the Garwoods was the second time that approach had been used. The Garwoods challenged the jeopardy tax assessments and filed an original tax appeal in the summer of 2009, arguing that they were deprived of their constitutional due process rights, thereby voiding the jeopardy assessments. The state disputed those claims, saying they were justified to use the assessments.

Judge Wentworth ruled against the state, finding that it hadn’t proved it had enough justification to issue the jeopardy assessments in this situation.

The state alleged the Garwoods were concealing property (the puppies) to avoid being taxed. The state argued that Virginia Garwood’s refusal to allow the Harrison County Animal Control onto her property at one point following a consumer complaint showed she was hiding the operation.

But Judge Wentworth disagreed, finding it was not reasonable to infer that Garwood’s intent was to conceal property to avoid paying taxes because one would not normally expect an animal control officer to be involved with tax collection matters. She also dismissed the state’s arguments that the Garwoods’ purchase of breeding animals in bulk was speculative as far as a way for them to conceal the individual sales of the dog operation.

While the Garwoods may not have been properly reporting and paying taxes, the evidence doesn’t prove they were intending not to pay or trying to thwart collection in any way, the judge determined.

“The Court holds that the Department did not show the presence of the statutorily prescribed exigent circumstances that the Garwoods intended to quickly leave the state, remove their property from the state, conceal their property in the state, or do another act that would jeopardize the collection of taxes,” she wrote.

Citing an Indiana Supreme Court ruling from 2002 about jeopardy assessments, Judge Wentworth noted that those tax tools should be issued as part of the state’s “power of the purse” and not its “power of the sword” in punishing crimes.

“Jeopardy assessments are a powerful collection tool that, when properly used, further the important state interest of collecting state tax revenue needed to pay for critical government services and conducting the business of the state,” Judge Wentworth wrote. “The designated evidence shows that the Garwoods did not remit the proper amount of tax due to the state on their sales, a fact the Garwoods have repeatedly acknowledged. Nonetheless, the Department overstepped its authority in this case by issuing jeopardy assessments without having shown exigent circumstances required by Indiana Code 6-8.1-5-3 and 45 IAC 15-5-8.”

The case is remanded to the state revenue department with instructions to void the Garwoods’ jeopardy assessments. The state now has the option of asking the Indiana Supreme Court to consider the case.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Correction
    Also, you refer to squalid conditions. The conditions at the farm were NOT squalid. The dogs had safe outdoor kennels, shade, igloo style shelters, water, food, bedding, there were pallets of food for the dogs and a refrigerator with immunizations to use on puppies. Please consider the actual facts of the case, not the media hype.
  • Correction
    You say in your article that the State did not have "a way to go after the Garwoods or other tax delinquents." That is not true. The State could have pursued this case like any other tax assessment case, sending an assessment, allowing for a hearing if there was an objection, etc. The jeopardy assessment procedure is certainly not the only way to pursue someone who has not paid their taxes.

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. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  2. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  3. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

  4. If our State Government would sue for their rights to grow HEMP like Kentucky did we would not have these issues. AND for your INFORMATION many medical items are also made from HEMP. FOOD, FUEL,FIBER,TEXTILES and MEDICINE are all uses for this plant. South Bend was built on Hemp. Our states antiquated fear of cannabis is embarrassing on the world stage. We really need to lead the way rather than follow. Some day.. we will have freedom in Indiana. And I for one will continue to educate the good folks of this state to the beauty and wonder of this magnificent plant.

  5. Put aside all the marijuana concerns, we are talking about food and fiber uses here. The federal impediments to hemp cultivation are totally ridiculous. Preposterous. Biggest hemp cultivators are China and Europe. We get most of ours from Canada. Hemp is as versatile as any crop ever including corn and soy. It's good the governor laid the way for this, regrettable the buffoons in DC stand in the way. A statutory relic of the failed "war on drugs"

ADVERTISEMENT