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 This document is effective as of its date of publication and remains in effect until the date it is superseded or deleted by the publication of another document in the Indiana Register.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

Individual submitted additional documents to establish that he abandoned his Indiana domicile when he worked in another state for the year of 2013.

I. Income Tax–Domicile.

Authority: IC § 6-8.1-5-1; Scopelite v. Indiana Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); 45 IAC 3.1-1-22 (2017); 45 IAC 3.1-1-22.5 (2017); Letter of Findings 01-20180540 (June 28, 2018).

Taxpayer protests the imposition of Indiana individual income tax.

Taxpayer is an individual. The Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") determined that Taxpayer was an Indiana resident for tax year 2013 and thus owed Indiana individual income tax. Taxpayer protested the Department's determination of residency and the imposition of a penalty. An administrative hearing was held. Letter of Findings 01-20180540 (June 28, 2018), 20180829 Ind. Reg. 045180333NRA ("LOF"), was issued, denying Taxpayer's protest on both issues.

Taxpayer disagreed with the LOF and submitted additional documents to support his rehearing request. A rehearing was conducted based on the additional documentation submitted by Taxpayer. This Supplemental Letter of Findings ensues. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Individual Income Tax–Domicile.

The Department, based on various reasons, found that Taxpayer did not intend to abandon his Indiana domicile and eventually returned to Indiana. As a result, the Department concluded that for 2013, Taxpayer was required to file an Indiana Full-Year Resident Individual Income Tax return (Form IT-40), reporting and remitting his Indiana income tax and that Taxpayer was allowed to claim a tax credit for the state income tax he paid to other states.

Taxpayer disagreed, requesting a rehearing. Throughout the rehearing process, Taxpayer offered additional documentation to support his position. The issue here is whether Taxpayer demonstrated that he was not required to file the IT-40 return for 2013 because he effectively abandoned his Indiana domicile prior to 2013.

As explained previously in the LOF, Taxpayer is required to demonstrate that the assessment is incorrect. IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c). Furthermore, Taxpayer is required to provide verifiable documentation explaining and supporting its challenge that the Department's assessment is wrong. Poorly developed and non-cogent arguments are subject to waiver. Scopelite v. Indiana Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010). During the rehearing, relying on the additional documentation, Taxpayer continued to argue that he was not required to file IT-40 return and was not responsible for the additional income tax because in 2013 he was not domiciled in Indiana.

In 2017, the Department revised the Adjusted Gross Income Tax regulations. Some revisions intended to clarify the definition of a person's domicile for Indiana income tax purposes and afford more considerations in determining a person's domicile. Thus, a taxpayer may benefit from the application of the new regulations when the taxpayer's domicile is in dispute. Thus, while this Decision applies the new regulations accordingly, this Decision also references and incorporates all relevant statutes, regulations, facts, and the Department findings discussed in the LOF and addresses Taxpayer's protest, in turn, as follows:

Throughout the rehearing process, to support his protest, Taxpayer submitted additional publicly verifiable documents, including a copy of his Voter Registration issued by State of Georgia. Specifically, Taxpayer's supporting documentation demonstrated, among other things, that he moved to Georgia in late 2012, that he leased a place in Georgia, that he registered his vehicle in Georgia, and that he registered to vote in Georgia.

Given the totality of the circumstances, the Department thus is prepared to agree that for 2013, Taxpayer was not domiciled in Indiana because his supporting documentation overcome the rebuttal presumption established under 45 IAC 3.1-1-22.5(c).

Since Taxpayer demonstrated that the Department's proposed assessment of income tax is not correct, the penalty issue is moot.

Taxpayer's protest is sustained.

December 17, 2018