NOTICE: IC § 6-8.1-3-3.5 and IC § 4-22-7-7 require the publication of this document in the Indiana Register. This document provides the general public with information about the Department's official position concerning a specific set of facts and issues. This document is effective as of its date of publication and remains in effect until the date it is superseded or deleted by the publication of another document in the Indiana Register. The "Holding" section of this document is provided for the convenience of the reader and is not part of the analysis contained in this Final Order Denying Refund.

Individuals were not entitled to a refund of individual income tax because they did not follow departmental procedures for filing a claim for refund prior to filing a legal protest.

I. Tax Administration - Refunds.

Authority: IC § 6-8.1-9-1; Dep't of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014); Wendt LLP v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012); Scopelite v. Ind. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); UACC Midwest, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 629 N.E.2d 1295 (Ind. T.C. 1994); Medco Health solutions, Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue, 9 N.E.3d 263 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014); 45 IAC 15-9-2; Commissioner's Directive 13 (August 2010).

Taxpayers protest the denial of refund of individual income tax.

Taxpayers are non-resident individuals filing Indiana income tax returns on Indiana sourced income. In January 2017, Taxpayer requested a refund of tax paid on their 2011 Indiana income tax return. The Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") denied Taxpayers' request stating that Taxpayers were out of statute to request a refund.

Taxpayers filed the instant protest and requested that the Department grant the refund, or allow Taxpayers to file a 2011 amended return requesting the refund. A telephone hearing was held and this Letter of Findings results. Further facts will be supplied as necessary.

I. Tax Administration - Refunds.

Taxpayers protest the amount of tax paid for the 2011 tax year and ask the Department to allow Taxpayers to file a 2011 amended return and refund the amount of tax paid.

The Indiana Supreme Court has held that when it examines a statute that an agency is "charged with enforcing . . . we defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of [the] statute even over an equally reasonable interpretation by another party." Dep't of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579, 583 (Ind. 2014). In addition, a taxpayer is required to provide documentation explaining and supporting his or her challenge that the Department's position is wrong. Poorly developed and non-cogent arguments are subject to waiver. Scopelite v. Ind. Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); Wendt LLP v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480, 486 n.9 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012).

IC § 6-8.1-9-1 provides:

Furthermore, 45 IAC 15-9-2 provides, in relevant part:

The Department further reiterates the requirements for properly claiming a refund in Commissioner's Directive 13 (August 2010), 20100728 Ind. Reg. 045100472NRA, which states, in relevant part:

A claim for refund may also be made by filing an amended return with the Department containing the information required by IC 6-8.1-9-1 within the statutory time period for filing a refund claim. UACC Midwest, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 629 N.E.2d 1295, 1299 (Ind. T.C. 1994).

Taxpayers request the Department to allow an amended return be filed and grant the subsequent refund. Taxpayers provided their 2011 federal extension, extending Taxpayers' filing requirements until October 15, 2012. Taxpayers also provided their "client copy" of the 2011 return. In addition, the Department's records show payment of the income tax on January 12, 2012. Taxpayers however did not provide any proof of the return being sent to the Department or proof that the Department received the return, such as a certified mail receipt or similar documentation. The Department has no record of receiving Taxpayers' 2011 return or having the return send back to the Taxpayers via returned mail.

Furthermore, Taxpayers are requesting to file an amended return claiming a refund more than three years from the 2011 tax year filing deadline. Taxpayers have not provided a GA-110L requesting a refund, nor a filed amended return requesting a refund. As stated in 45 IAC 15-9-2, "The department has no legal method of generating a claim for refund. A claim for refund can only be initiated pursuant to IC 6-8.1-9-1." This determination is further supported by the Indiana Tax Court's ruling in Medco Health solutions, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of Revenue, stating that "The Department has no legal method of generating a claim for refund on its own; rather, a claim for refund can only be initiated by a taxpayer pursuant to the procedure set forth in Indiana Code § 6-8.1-9-1. 45 Ind. Admin. Code 15-9-2(b) (2003)." 9 N.E.3d 263, 266 (Ind. T.C. 2014). Thus, the Department has no authority to allow Taxpayers to file an amended return that is outside of the three year statute of limitations. In addition, Taxpayers have not followed the appropriate steps set out in IC § 6-8.1-9-1 to request a refund. Thus, the Department does not have standing to grant Taxpayers' request. Furthermore, even if Taxpayers showed a verifiably filed 2011 return the statute of limitations to request a refund expired on October 15, 2015, three years after October 15, 2012.

Taxpayer's protest is denied.