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 This document is effective on its date of publication and remains in effect until the date it is superseded or deleted by the publication of another document in the Indiana Register.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

Taxpayer did not establish that it submitted its Proportional Use Credit refund claim on time.

I. Motor Carrier Fuel Tax - Proportional Use Credit.

Authority: IC 6-6-4.1-4.8; IC 6-6-4.1-10; IC 6-8.1-6-3; IC 6-8.1-6-7; IC 6-8.1-1-9; Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014).

Taxpayer argues it timely filed a refund claim based on its Proportional Use Credit.

Taxpayer is an out-of-state trucking company that operates in several states and has passed through Indiana in the course of its business. On November 1, 2022, Taxpayer filed for a Proportional Use Credit ("PUC") refund through both paper and electronic communication. The Department denied Taxpayer's claim on December 5, 2022.

Taxpayer protested the denial of refund. The Department held an administrative hearing. This Letter of Findings results. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Motor Vehicles - Proportional Use Credit.

The issue is whether Taxpayer has established that it timely filed its refund claim with the Department. In its initial refund review, the Department determined that Taxpayer's claim was untimely. Taxpayer protests the denial of refund. Taxpayer argues that the submittal of both paper and electronic correspondence for filing on November 1, 2022, did not violate the statutory requirement of "on or before the due date of the corresponding quarterly return for the taxable period for which the proportional use credit is claimed." See IC 6-6-4.1-4.8. The corresponding due date, per statute, was October 31, 2022. In the course of its protest, Taxpayer acknowledged that the Department does in fact need a steadfast, hardened cutoff relative to quarterly returns; however, Taxpayer also argued that the Department's administration was not reasonable when comparing electronic versus paper submission because paper submission would arrive later than electronic, regardless of the day submitted upon.

The Department notes that, "when [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.

Here, the prescribed date for the PUC claim was the last day of the quarterly taxable period. The last day of the quarterly taxable period was October 31, 2022. Taxpayer submitted its PUC refund claim through both paper and electronic correspondence for filing on November 1, 2022, a day after the statutorily required deadline.

Taxpayer raises the issue of electronic communication compared to paper filing. See IC 6-8.1-6-7. However, Taxpayer's concern regarding electronic compared to paper correspondence filing is not central to or dispositive of the Department's findings. The timeframe and ease of doing business electronically do not affect the analysis here.

During the hearing, Taxpayer provided context and operational issues surrounding the protest. The Department recognizes that Taxpayer's arguments are made in good faith; however, the problem in the present protest is due to the timely submission on the due date. Timing is vital for the calculation and disbursement of PUC to eligible filers. Calculations and disbursements are based on timely filing, which allows the Department to adhere to applicable law.

The Department may receive electronic or paper submissions after the quarterly deadline. See IC 6-6-4.1-4.8. The claim will still be considered timely, providing that the postmark date is prior to the statutory deadline. Taxpayer acknowledges this scenario, stating that if it had filed the proportional use credit claim by mail, on or before the due date, the correspondence would have been received after the statutory end of the quarter and the claim would have been processed by the Department. The deadline for claiming the proportional use credit, however, is established by statute and is unmovable to any individual regardless of the circumstances. Relevant exceptions for holidays are provided but said exceptions do not apply here. See IC 6-8.1-1-9(a). Taxpayer has not referred to any statute, regulation, or court case which would allow the Department to ignore the statutory deadline. Taxpayer has not proven that it timely filed a Proportional Use Credit. Therefore, the protest is respectfully denied.

Taxpayer's protest is denied.

January 24, 2024