in-20260826-IR-045260283NRA: LETTER OF FINDINGS: 65-20253174

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 65-20253174 Indiana Overweight Civil Penalty For The Year 2025 HOLDING Out-of-state trucking business provided sufficient evidence to establish that the civil penalty should be reduced. ISSUE

I. Motor Vehicles – Overweight Civil Penalty.

Authority: IC 6-8.1-5-1; IC 6-8.1-1-1; IC 9-20-1-1; IC 9-20-1-2; IC 9-20-4-1; IC 9-20-18-7; IC 9-20-18-14.5; Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014); Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc., 963 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2012); Lafayette Square Amoco, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 867 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007). Taxpayer protests the assessment of an overweight civil penalty. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is an out-of-state motor carrier business that provides trucking services. On September 4, 2025, the Indiana State Police (“ISP”) cited Taxpayer’s commercial motor vehicle for overweight violations without obtaining an overweight permit. As a result, the Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) issued Taxpayer a proposed assessment for an overweight violation under IC 9-20-18-14.5(c). Taxpayer protested the assessment. Taxpayer waived its right to an administrative hearing while maintaining its protest. This Letter of Findings is therefore based on the materials sent in by Taxpayer with the protest letter and the Department’s records. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Motor Vehicles – Overweight Civil Penalty. 

DISCUSSION Taxpayer protests the imposition of a penalty for an overweight violation of one of its vehicles under IC 9-20-18-14.5(c). Taxpayer argues that mitigating factors should result in a reduction in the assessed civil penalty amount. As a threshold issue, it is Taxpayer’s responsibility to establish that the existing proposed assessment is incorrect. As stated in IC 6-8.1-5-1(c): See also Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc., 963 N.E.2d 463, 466 (Ind. 2012); Lafayette Square Amoco, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 867 N.E.2d 289, 292 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007). 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. According to IC 9-20-1-1, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in [IC Art. 9-20], a person, including a transport operator, may not operate or move upon a highway a vehicle or combination of vehicles of a size or weight exceeding the limitations provided in [IC Art. 9-20].” According to IC 9-20-1-2, the owner of a vehicle “may not cause or knowingly permit to be operated or moved upon a highway [in Indiana] a vehicle or combination of vehicles of a size or weight exceeding the limitations provided in [IC Art. 9-20].” IC 9-20-18-14.5 authorizes the Department to impose civil penalties against motor carriers that obtain a permit under IC Art. 9-20 and violate IC Art. 9-20 (“Permit Violation Civil Penalty”) or are required, but fail, to obtain a permit under IC Art. 9-20 (“No Permit Civil Penalty”). The Department may also impose a civil penalty for vehicles or loads in excess of the size or weight limits provided in IC Art. 9-20 and for which no permit is available for the excess size or weight (“No Permit Available Civil Penalty”). IC 6-8.1-1-1 states that fees and penalties stemming from IC Art. 9-20 violations are a “listed tax.” Under IC 9-20-18-14.5(a), these listed taxes are in addition to and separate from any settlement or agreement made with a local court or political subdivision regarding the traffic stop. IC 9-20-18-7 provides defenses which taxpayers may rely on when they submit their protest to the Department. ISP examined Taxpayer’s vehicle and found violations of being 4,420 pounds over the maximum allowed gross weight of 76,000 pounds and 8,250 pounds overweight on the trailer tandem axle, in violation of IC 9-20-4-1. As a result, the Department imposed a “No Permit Civil Penalty” in accordance with IC 9-20-18-14.5(c) because Taxpayer is required under Indiana Code to obtain an overweight permit when the vehicle gross weight is above the legally allowable weight. IC 9-20-18-14.5(c) states: Taxpayer argues that it implemented corrective action as a result of the citation. Taxpayer stated that its employee was “new” and “assumed that our aluminum trailer had a GVWR [“Gross Vehicle Weight Rating”] of 80,000 pounds.” Taxpayer indicated that the trailer in question only had a GVWR of 76,500 pounds. Consequently, that discrepancy in the understanding of the trailer’s GVWR led to it being overloaded and thus, the overweight violations. Taxpayer described that in order “to eliminate this issue in the future,” it subsequently posted the GVWRs of “each truck, tractor, & trailer” in its fleet “on the front cover of each vehicle binder.” While Taxpayer has not established that its vehicle in question was at or under the allowable gross and tandem trailer weights at the time of inspection, IC 9-20-18-14.5 provides “not more than” language for the Department to consider when generating a proposed assessment amount. Considering Taxpayer’s history of compliance at the time of this inspection and information provided by Taxpayer during the protest process, the Department will generate an adjusted assessment with a reduced amount as authorized by its statutory discretion and this Letter of Findings. FINDING Taxpayer’s protest is sustained in part and denied to the extent that Taxpayer did not prove the entire penalty should be removed. June 18, 2026 Replaces Finding Document: New