in-20261028-IR-045260402NRA: LETTER OF FINDINGS: 41-20261731

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 41-20261731 International Registration Plan For the Distance Reporting Period July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024 HOLDING Indiana trucking business was not able to meet its burden of proving the proposed assessment was wrong; therefore, the assessment remains as issued. ISSUE

I. International Registration Plan - Assessment.

Authority: IC 6-6-4.1-14; IC 6-8.1-5-1; IC 6-8.1-5-4; IC 9-28-4-6; IRP, Article X-1000; IRP, Article X-1005; IRP, Article X-1010; IRP, Article X-1015; IRP, Article X-1065; 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); Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014). Taxpayer protests the assessment of additional International Registration Plan ("IRP") fees. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is an Indiana-based motor carrier business that provides trucking services. The Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") audited Taxpayer related to the IRP, an agreement providing for registration reciprocity among member jurisdictions, including Indiana. However, the Department could not complete a standard audit due to a lack of adequate records from Taxpayer. In accordance with IRP guidelines, the Department issued a proposed assessment. Taxpayer protested the proposed assessment. Taxpayer waived its right to a hearing while maintaining its protest. This Letter of Findings is therefore based on the materials sent in by Taxpayer with the protest letter and on the Department's records. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. International Registration Plan - Assessment.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer protests the imposition of additional IRP fees for the distance reporting period of July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024. The Department based its determination that additional IRP fees were due on the fact that Taxpayer had insufficient, or non-existent, distance records available for review. Taxpayer's only submitted distance records during the audit were driver trip reports for a single power unit for the fourth quarter of 2024, outside of the reporting period. In addition, the Department found that Taxpayer had no internal controls or processes in place pertaining to IRP reporting requirements. Therefore, the Department imposed an additional assessment on Taxpayer for having inadequate distance records. As a threshold issue, it is Taxpayer's burden 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. The Department first refers to IC 6-6-4.1-14, which states: IC 9-28-4-6 states: IC 6-8.1-5-4 states: IRP, Article X-1065 states: IRP, Article X-1000 states: IRP, Article X-1005 states: IRP, Article X-1010 states: IRP, Article X-1015 provides that: Taxpayer protested the proposed assessment permitted under the International Fuel Tax Association, Inc. ("IFTA") Articles of Agreement along with the assessment for IRP. As a part of its protest, Taxpayer submitted additional fuel records pertaining to its IFTA protest as well as the total jurisdictional distance for its two units. These records lack the necessary information needed to meet the distance reporting requirements of IRP. Taxpayer provided no further supplementary distance records in its protest submission or during the protest process. Under IRP, Article X-1005 and IC 6-8.1-5-4, it is Taxpayer's responsibility to maintain specific, detailed, and accurate information concerning its fuel purchases and jurisdiction miles. As a reminder to Taxpayer, IRP, Article X-1005(a) specifically states that the records maintained by a registrant under Section 1000 shall be adequate to enable the base jurisdiction to verify the distances reported in the registrant's application for apportioned registration and to evaluate the accuracy of the registrant's distance accounting system for its fleet. IRP, Article X-1010 establishes that records containing the following elements shall be accepted by the base jurisdiction as adequate under Section 1005(a): the beginning and ending dates of the trip to which the records pertain; the origin and destination of the trip; the route of travel; the beginning and ending reading from the odometer, hubodometer, ECM, or any similar device for the trip; the total distance of the trip; the distance traveled in each jurisdiction; and the vehicle identification number of vehicle unit number. In this case, Taxpayer's records are deficient under the requirements of IRP, Article X-1005(a). Taxpayer has not met the burden of proving the proposed assessment wrong, as required by IC 6-8.1-5-1(c). As provided above, it is Taxpayer's responsibility to maintain specific, detailed, and accurate records concerning jurisdictional travel to comply with the IRP and IC 6-8.1-5-1(c). FINDING Taxpayer's protest is respectfully denied. August 24, 2026 Replaces Finding Document: New