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 Memorandum of Decision.

Taxpayer provided documentation sufficient to establish that its claim for refund was not barred by the statute of limitations.

I. Withholding Tax - Statute of Limitations.

Authority: IC 6-8.1-9-1; IC 6-3-4-8; Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014); 45 IAC 3.1-1-97.

Taxpayer argues that the Department's refund denial for 2017 withholding tax was incorrect as an overpayment exists for that tax period.

Taxpayer is a religious organization. Taxpayer filed a Protest Submission Form ("Form") protesting the Indiana Department of Revenue's ("Department") denial of a refund claim. Taxpayer marked on the Form "Final determination without a hearing." That selection means that a taxpayer is forgoing a hearing and asking the Department to "make its decision based on the written protest and documentation (if any) the taxpayer presents with the protest, and waives the right to a hearing." Thus, this Memorandum of Decision was written based upon the information provided by Taxpayer with its protest. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Withholding Tax - Statute of Limitations.

Taxpayer protests the refund denial, claiming that its payment of 2017 withholding tax should be refunded. The Department denied the claim based on the expiration of the statute of limitations to file a claim for refund.

"[W]hen [courts] examine a statute that an agency is 'charged with enforcing. . .[courts] defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of [the] statute even over an equally reasonable interpretation by another party.'" Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579, 583 (Ind. 2014). Thus, all interpretations of Indiana tax law contained within this decision shall be entitled to deference.

And after listing some exceptions, the statute states:

An Indiana employer is required to "withhold, collect, and pay over income tax on wages paid by such employer to such employee . . . [in] the amount prescribed in withholding instructions issued by the department." IC 6-3-4-8(a). Subsection (a)(1) specifically provides that the employer is liable for the amount that it was required to withhold. These statutory requirements are restated in 45 IAC 3.1-1-97, which also explains that "[i]n the case of delinquency or nonpayment of withholding tax, the employer is liable for such tax, penalties, and interest." Id.

The Department's denial letter, dated May 12, 2022, states in pertinent part that Taxpayer's protest was denied for failing to file the claim "within three years after the due date of the return or date of payment, which is later."

Taxpayer, in turn, states:

A review of the documentation provided by Taxpayer shows that Taxpayer requested a refund in 2018, thus the request was within the three-year time period outlined in IC 6-8.1-9-1. Therefore, Taxpayer's refund request is timely. Since the Department's denial of the refund claim was regarding its purported untimeliness, this Memorandum of Decision only addresses that question. And, as noted supra, Taxpayer's refund claim was timely.

Taxpayer's protest is sustained regarding timeliness. The Department's refund section is instructed to process Taxpayer's refund claim.

June 6, 2023