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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT