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 This document is effective on its date of publication and remains in effect until the date it is superseded or deleted by the publication of another document in the Indiana Register.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 Letter of Findings.

Indiana Motor Carrier was unable to establish that the Department's assessment of additional International Registration Plan fees was incorrect; Indiana Motor Carrier failed to maintain jurisdictional mileage records, travel routes, travel points, or odometer readings.

I. International Registration Plan - Assessment.

Authority: IC § 6-6-4.1-14; IC § 6-6-4.1-14(a); IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c); IC § 6-8.1-5-4(a); IC § 6-8.1-5-4(c); IC § 9-28-4-6; IRP § 1005 (2013); IRP § 1010 (2013); Lafayette Square Amoco, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 867 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007).

Taxpayer argues that the Department miscalculated the amount of IRP fees assessed Taxpayer.

Taxpayer is an Indiana motor carrier which - according to publicly available information - operates five trucks and provides inter-state and in-state transportation services. Taxpayer chose Indiana as its base jurisdiction for purposes of the International Fuel Tax Association ("IFTA") and the International Registration Plan ("IRP"). The Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") conducted an IFTA and IRP audit, which resulted in the assessment of additional IFTA taxes and IRP fees.

Taxpayer disagreed with the assessment and submitted a protest to that effect. Two administrative hearings were conducted during which Taxpayer's representatives explained the basis for the protest. This Letter of Findings results.

I. International Registration Plan - Assessment.

Taxpayer protests the imposition of IRP fees for the tax year 2015. The IRP is a program for registering commercial vehicles that operate within member jurisdictions, including Indiana. The Indiana Code permits Indiana to join the IRP agreement ("the Plan") via IC § 6-6-4.1-14 and IC § 9-28-4-6. IC § 6-6-4.1-14(a) states in relevant part:

IC § 9-28-4-6 states in relevant part:

Taxpayer operated "units" in Indiana and other states, but Taxpayer selected Indiana as its base jurisdiction, pursuant to Article IV of the Plan (2013). In conjunction with the IFTA audit, the Department conducted an IRP audit under the terms of Articles XV and XVI of the Plan (2013) and the International Registration Plans Audit Procedures Manual.

The Department selected 2014 as the registration year to audit. The Department determined that Taxpayer owed additional IRP fees based upon the documentation that was provided to calculate the IFTA assessment. Taxpayer argues that its records were adequately maintained and that the assessment of additional IRP fees is unwarranted.

§ 1005 of the Plan (2013) provides that:

§ 1010 of the Plan (2013) goes on to provide that:

The Department's audit found that "[a] true mileage audit could not be conducted due to inadequate mileage records" and that Taxpayer "did not maintain jurisdictional miles or routes of travel." The Department's audit found that it was not possible to review Taxpayer's "trip reports" for "continuity of dates, travel points, or odometer readings." The audit concluded that Taxpayer "had no internal controls in place" and "failed to understand [its] record keeping responsibility."

It should be pointed out that, "Every person subject to a listed tax must keep books and records so that the department can determine the amount, if any, of the person's liability for tax by reviewing those books and records." IC § 6-8.1-5-4(a). In addition, IC § 6-8.1-5-4(c) provides that, "A person must allow inspection of the books and records and returns by the department or its authorized agents at all reasonable times." IC § 6-8.1-5-4(c).

Taxpayer supplied the same records to dispute the assessment of additional IRP fees, which - the audit concluded - were similarly inadequate for the purposes of IRP.

During the administrative hearing, Taxpayer suggested that it was able to verify its mileage records by referring to the zip codes areas through which its vehicles traveled. However, Taxpayer failed to establish that its "zip code" records were complete or that its vehicles traveled to or within the areas indicated by those records.

It is Taxpayer's responsibility to maintain specific, detailed, and accurate information concerning its fuel purchases and jurisdiction miles. In the absence of complete, detailed source documentation, the Department's best information available audit assessment is reasonable and supported by law and the Plan and its Audit Procedures Manual. The taxpayer bears the burden of proving that any assessment is incorrect, and Taxpayer has failed to meet that burden. IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c); Lafayette Square Amoco, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 867 N.E.2d 289, 292 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007).

Taxpayer's protest is respectfully denied.