in-20260826-IR-045260282NRA: LETTER OF FINDINGS: 65-20251377

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 65-20251377 Indiana Overweight Civil Penalty For The Year 2025 HOLDING Indiana 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 Indiana-based motor carrier business that provides trucking services. On January 22, 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 submission 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 argued in its protest submission that mitigating factors should allow for “leniency” in terms of the assessed 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 and weighed Taxpayer’s vehicle, finding violations of it being 2,120 pounds over the maximum allowed gross weight of 80,000 pounds as well as 4,660 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 “had no reason to think we were overweight” given the type of commodity its vehicle was transporting and the fact that the shipping facility had no scale available to weigh vehicles before departure. Taxpayer asserted that because of the lack of scale at the loading site, it has now taken corrective and remedial action to “insure [sic] that this doesn’t happen again.” Taxpayer described that it has installed weigh systems on its vehicles and trailers. As a result, Taxpayer stated that it now weighs truckloads that are close to maximum allowed legal weights at a Certified Automatic Truck scale “8 miles from the shipper.” 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 17, 2026 Replaces Finding Document: New