ILNews

Trial court lacks jurisdiction in tax suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Tax Court is the proper venue for a suit filed by the state to recover an erroneous tax refund, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed today.

The Indiana Attorney General, on behalf of the state, filed a suit in Jackson Superior Court to recover a tax refund granted by the Indiana Department of Revenue to Aisin U.S.A. Manufacturing. The state believed the refund was erroneously granted due to a miscalculation of the refund owed to Aisin. Aisin had overpaid one year by more than $150,000; the DOR calculated that Aisin had overpaid by $1.07 million.

After discovering the error, the DOR sent a proposed assessment of how much Aisin actually owed due to the wrong credit amount. Aisin protested, but the DOR never held the requested hearing or issued a letter of findings. It instead cancelled the proposed assessment, but then a year it later tried to again recover the money. The state then filed the complaint in state court.

The trial court granted Aisin's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction. On appeal in State of Indiana v. Aisin USA Mfg., Inc., No. 36A01-0909-CV-442, the state argued that it wasn't trying to collect a tax but just recover the money mistakenly refunded to Aisin.

But the mistake in which the state based its claim is a mistake in the calculation of a tax refund, wrote Judge Paul Mathias. The underlying core of the state's claims is an income tax issue that comes under the tax statutes.

The state also argued the Tax Court couldn't have jurisdiction because the DOR never entered a letter of findings. But the DOR was statutorily obligated to do so.

"We do not think that the DOR may unilaterally cancel a proposed tax assessment, fail to hold a hearing, and fail to issue a letter of findings in an attempt to deprive the Tax Court of jurisdiction, only to then attempt to litigate the issue in a trial court of general jurisdiction," wrote the judge.

The Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction once the letter is issued. To hold otherwise would allow the DOR to avoid jurisdiction of the Tax Court by refusing to issue a letter of findings.

The state claimed that if it's not allowed to proceed in the trial court, it will be without recourse because the statute of limitations has expired.

"As Americans, and as Hoosiers, we take great pride in being a society of laws rather than of men," wrote Judge Mathias, noting that the Tax Court has held a taxpayer can't seek a refund for a tax period outside the statute of limitations. "We believe the same reasoning applies to the State when it seeks to recover an allegedly improper tax refund outside the relevant limitations period. To have any real meaning, statutes need to apply equally to the State as well as to its citizens."

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

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT