NOTICE: IC § 4-22-7-7 permits the publication of this document in the Indiana Register. The publication of this document provides the general public with information about the Indiana Department of Revenue's official position concerning a specific set of facts and issues. The "Holding" section of this document is provided for the convenience of the reader and is not part of the analysis contained in this document.

Transportation Service Provider was not entitled to additional refund of sales tax because a portion of the claim was filed outside of the statute of limitations; the submission of an incomplete refund claim did not toll the applicable statute of limitations.

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); 45 IAC 15-9-2; Commissioner's Directive 13 (October 2015).

Taxpayer protests the partial denial of a claim for refund.

Taxpayer is a company formerly headquartered in Indiana that provided transportation services. Taxpayer dissolved as an entity in January 2017 and merged into another company. On December 26, 2017, Taxpayer submitted a claim for refund of sales tax to the Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") requesting a refund of sales tax paid from January 2014 through December 2017 on certain purchases that Taxpayer claimed were exempt from gross retail tax. Taxpayer filed a GA-110L on December 26, 2017, but did not attach all of the supporting documentation, including invoices.

The Department sent Taxpayer a rejection letter on January 8, 2018, stating, "[T]he Department cannot accept your claim for refund form because additional information is required." The letter requested additional documentation and provided Taxpayer twenty days to submit the required documentation. Taxpayer did not respond to the request. The Department sent a refund denial letter to Taxpayer on February 9, 2018. Taxpayer resubmitted its refund claim on March 9, 2018, along with the required documentation. The Department denied Taxpayer's refund request for sales tax paid during the 2014 tax year because the claim was filed outside of the statute of limitations for a refund of sales tax.

Taxpayer protests the partial denial of the refund. Taxpayer requested a final determination without a hearing. Further facts will be supplied as necessary.

I. Tax Administration - Refunds.

Taxpayer protests the Department's denial of its claim for refund for tax year 2014. In reviewing a taxpayer's argument, 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, 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(a) provides:

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

The Department further explains the requirements for properly claiming a refund in Commissioner's Directive 13 (October 2015), 20151125 Ind. Reg. 045150407NRA, which states, in relevant part:

In this instance, Taxpayer received a rejection of the submission of its original refund claim due to lack of sufficient documentation. The rejection letter was dated January 8, 2018. Taxpayer did not respond to this letter, resulting in the refund denial letter from the Department dated February 9, 2018. Taxpayer's refund claim was not accepted by the Department until March 9, 2018. As stated in Commissioner's Directive 13, the accepted refund claim does not relate back to the originally filed, rejected claim for purposes of the statute of limitations. The incomplete claim for refund filed on December 26, 2017, did not toll the statute of limitations under IC§ 6-8.1-9-1.

Taxpayer asserts that the rejection letter was sent to Taxpayer and not Taxpayer's Power of Attorney, thus the reason Taxpayer did not respond to the request for additional information. However, there is no evidence that Taxpayer itself did not receive the notice, and the fact that Taxpayer may not have timely forwarded this correspondence to its representative does not warrant the Department equitably tolling the statute of limitations. The rejection letter was clear that Taxpayer had twenty days to provide additional documentation or its claim would be denied, and also stated that the statute of limitations would not be tolled by the submission of the incomplete claim. Thus, the Department was correct in denying the 2014 portion of Taxpayer's claim for being filed outside of the statute of limitations.

Taxpayer's protest is respectfully denied.

November 26, 2018