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 This document is effective on its date of publication and remains in effect until the date it is superseded or deleted by the publication of another document in the Indiana Register.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

In the course of the protest process, Couple was able to provide adequate documentation to establish that they were not domiciled in Indiana for the tax year 2019.

I. Individual Income Tax - Failure to file.

Authority: IC § 6-3-1-3.5; IC § 6-3-1-12; IC § 6-3-1-13; IC § 6-3-2-1; IC § 6-3-2-2; IC § 6-8.1-5-1; Indiana Dep't of State Revenue v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc., 963 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2012); State Election Bd. v. Bayh, 521 N.E.2d 1313 (Ind. 1988); Croop v. Walton, 157 N.E. 275 (Ind. 1927); Scopelite v. Indiana Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012); Lafayette Square Amoco, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 867 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007); 45 IAC 3.1-1-21; 45 IAC 3.1-1-22.

Taxpayers protest the assessment of individual income tax.

For the year at issue, Taxpayers were a married couple, ("Husband") and ("Wife"). The Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") determined that Taxpayers were domiciled in Indiana for 2019 and that they should have filed an Indiana income tax return but had not done so. The Department therefore issued a proposed assessment. Taxpayers protested the assessment, the Department held a hearing, and this Letter of Findings results. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Individual Income Tax - Failure to file.

Taxpayers relocated to Florida for Husband's job. Taxpayers claim that neither have a source of income from nor property in Indiana. Taxpayers provided documentation including their current Florida apartments lease beginning January 14, 2019 and apartment ledger showing payments; electricity bill from their apartment, cable, internet bill from their apartment; their Florida auto insurance card, and a letter from Husband's employer that he is working remotely. Taxpayers argue that this documentation establishes their position that they were not domiciled in Indiana during 2019.

As a threshold issue, all tax assessments are prima facie evidence that the Department's claim for the unpaid tax is valid; the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that any assessment is incorrect. 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); Indiana Dep't of State Revenue v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc., 963 N.E.2d 463, 466 (Ind. 2012). Thus, the taxpayer is required to provide documentation explaining and supporting his 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); Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480, 486 n.9 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012).

Indiana imposes a tax "upon the adjusted gross income of every resident person, and on that part of the adjusted gross income derived from sources within Indiana of every nonresident person." IC § 6-3-2-1(a). IC § 6-3-2-2(a) specifically outlines what is income derived from Indiana sources and subject to Indiana income tax. IC § 6-3-1-3.5(a) provides the starting point to determine the taxpayer's taxable income and to calculate what would be their Indiana income tax after applying certain additions and subtractions to that starting point.

For Indiana income tax purposes, resident "includes (a) any individual who was domiciled in this state during the taxable year, or (b) any individual who maintains a permanent place of residence in this state and spends more than one hundred eighty-three (183) days of the taxable year within this state . . . ." IC § 6-3-1-12; see also 45 IAC 3.1-1-21. Nonresident is "any person who is not a resident of Indiana." IC § 6-3-1-13.

Additionally, 45 IAC 3.1-1-22 states in relevant part:

Thus, a new domicile is not necessarily created when an individual moves to an address outside Indiana. Instead, the individual must move to the new non-Indiana address and have intent to remain at that non-Indiana address.

For guidance in determining a taxpayer's domicile, the Department refers to Croop v. Walton, 157 N.E. 275 (Ind. 1927). In Croop a taxpayer, Mr. Walton, moved from Sturgis, Michigan to Elkhart, Indiana by selling his Michigan residence and purchasing a residence in Indiana, where he and his wife lived for several years for the benefits of his wife's health. Indiana assessed Mr. Walton state income tax on his intangible property. Id. at 276-78. Mr. Walton disagreed, arguing that his intangible property was not subject to Indiana taxes because he was domiciled in Michigan. Id. The court found that Mr. Walton: owned and managed a company and stores in Michigan; maintained his membership with lodges, clubs, and a church; on various occasions exercised his civil and political rights; and that Sturgis was used in his legal documents, including insurance policies, mortgages, leases, contracts, and other instruments. Ruling in favor of Mr. Walton, the court concluded that Mr. Walton did not change his domicile from Michigan to Indiana and his intangible property was not subject to certain Indiana taxes. The court explained, in relevant part, that:

In State Election Bd. v. Bayh, 521 N.E.2d 1313 (Ind. 1988), the Indiana Supreme Court reiterated similar analysis and determined that Mr. Bayh met the residency requirement for the office of Governor because Mr. Bayh's domicile remained in Indiana even though Mr. Bayh moved to different states for various reasons for many years. Specifically, the court illustrated, in relevant part, that:

In short, any individual who was domiciled in this state during the taxable year is a resident. IC § 6-3-1-12(a). "A change of domicile requires an actual moving with an intent to go to a given place and remain there. It must be an intention coupled with acts evidencing that intention to make the new domicile a home in fact. . . . [T]here must be the intention to abandon the old domicile; the intention to acquire a new one; and residence in the new place in order to accomplish a change of domicile." Bayh, 521 N.E.2d at 1317. Taxpayers have done so. Therefore, Taxpayers have met the burden of proving the proposed assessment wrong, as required by IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c).

Taxpayers were domiciled in Indiana prior to 2019. Taxpayers provided verification that Husband in fact worked and the couple resided in Florida in 2019. Taxpayers provided sufficient explanation and documentation that they were neither domiciled nor have no sources of income in Indiana. Taxpayers' documentation included receipt of payments to their apartment in Florida, their lease agreement, a letter from Husband's employer that he is working remotely in Florida, and copies of Florida utility bills, Thus, Taxpayers have met their burden under IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c).

Taxpayers' protest is sustained.

November 24, 2020