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 Final Order Denying Refund.

Taxpayer filed a protest regarding the Indiana Department of Revenue's ("Department") refund denial for the year 2016, however Taxpayer failed to sufficiently develop the protest's argument.

I. Individual Income Tax - Claim for Refund

Authority: IC 6-3-2-1; IC 6-3-2-2; IC 6-3-1-3.5; IC 6-8.1-9-1; 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); Express Scripts Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 170 N.E.3d 273 (Ind. Tax Court 2021).

Taxpayer protested the Department's denial of a claim for refund.

Taxpayer's representative filed a Protest Submission Form ("Form") protesting the Department's denial of a claim for refund for the tax year 2016. On the Form, Taxpayer's representative checked the box indicating that "new documentation that has not been previously reviewed" by the Department was included with the protest and that Taxpayer wanted a "Final determination without a hearing." The latter states that a taxpayer waives the right to a hearing and "asks the Department to make its decision based on the written protest and documentation . . . ." As part of the protest Taxpayer's representative sent in the following: (1) the Protest Submission Form; (2) the POA-1 form; (3) the written protest letter; (4) a copy of the Department's refund denial letter; and (5) copies of 2016 W-2's for the couple.

In January of 2023 the Department e-mailed the representative regarding the fact that the Protest Submission Form and the protest letter listed the married couple (referred to herein, as needed for clarity, as either Taxpayer or Taxpayer 2), but that the Power of Attorney form (POA-1) that he had provided with the protest for his representation only listed one of the two people (namely, Taxpayer). The Department asked that he provide a POA-1 form for Taxpayer and Taxpayer 2 if both were part of the protest and represented by him; the Department also asked the representative to clarify the protest and provide any relevant supporting documentation to the Department by a specific date. That date has passed, and the Department did not receive a POA-1 form for Taxpayer 2. The Department also did not receive any further clarification/explanation of the protest nor any additional supporting documentation. This written decision is based upon information provided with the initial protest filing.

I. Individual Income Tax - Claim for Refund.

Indiana imposes an adjusted gross income tax on all residents. IC 6-3-2-1(a). Taxpayer's Indiana income is determined by starting with the federal adjusted gross income and making certain adjustments. IC 6-3-1-3.5(a). IC 6-3-2-2(a) specifically outlines what is income derived from Indiana sources and subject to Indiana income tax.

In a letter dated December 20, 2021, the Department stated that it was denying the couple's claim for refund:

Refund claims are governed by IC 6-8.1-9-1, which states in pertinent part that if "a person has paid more tax than the person determines is legally due for a particular taxable period" that the "person may file a claim for refund with the department." Further, the refund claim must be filed with the Department "within three (3) years after the later of the following: (1) The due date of the return. (2) The date of payment."

Turning to Taxpayer's February 9, 2022, protest letter, Taxpayer's representative states in thirteen numbered paragraphs:

Taxpayer's representative concludes the protest letter by stating:

A taxpayer is required to provide documentation explaining and supporting his or her challenge that the Department's position is wrong. The Indiana Tax Court has noted that 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). A taxpayer, when submitting evidence as part of the taxpayer's protest, needs to specify and explain the portions of the evidence that taxpayer believes to be relevant. As the Indiana Tax Court has previously noted (in the context of a summary judgment motion): "the Court will not consider" exhibits "on the off chance that it might find, on its own and undirected, some fact that supports" a claim, and "the Court is not required to search for specific facts on which" a party relies. Express Scripts Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 170 N.E.3d 273, 279 (Ind. Tax Court 2021).

In the present case there are in effect two issues, which the Department states as follows:

As noted, the Department informed the representative in an e-mail in January of 2023 that he would need to clarify what exactly his argument was and that he would need to provide any relevant supporting documentation. The Department held the protest open for the representative to provide the clarification. No further clarification/explanation regarding the protest was provided by Taxpayer.

With that in mind, the Department notes that even if, arguendo, the refund claim was filed timely, Taxpayer provided no cogent explanation or additional relevant supporting documentation as to why under Indiana law Taxpayer would be entitled to the refund. Taxpayer's protest does not cite to any statutes, regulations, or cases, as part of the protest. Therefore, Taxpayer's protest is denied pursuant to Scopelite, Wendt LLP, and Express Scripts Inc. Taxpayer's protest does not constitute a sufficiently developed argument.

Taxpayer's protest is denied.

April 24, 2023