in-20260422-IR-045260109NRA: LETTER OF FINDINGS: 41-20252512

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 41-20252512 International Registration Plan  For the Distance Reporting Period July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023 HOLDING Indiana 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 and submitted additional documentation with its protest filing. 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 its 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, 2022, to June 30, 2023. The Department based its determination that additional IRP fees were due on the fact that Taxpayer did not have sufficient or adequate documentation available for review. Taxpayer had no internal controls or processes in place to verify distance records, odometer readings, or continuity of jurisdictional travel. While Taxpayer provided some odometer readings for its units, the readings were only for distances at the time Taxpayer was purchasing fuel or making bulk fuel withdrawals for its vehicles. Therefore, these submitted records did not include the required distance reporting information and the Department used revised mileage figures as provided under the IRP. Those calculations resulted in the Department determining that additional IRP fees were due. 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 states: Taxpayer protested the proposed assessment permitted under the International Fuel Tax Association, Inc.’s Articles of Agreement along with the assessment for IRP, stating that it submitted additional documentation. Taxpayer provided the Department copies of invoices for some of its intrastate truckloads in addition to bills of lading. A review of these documents determined that they were inadequate records to account for verification of jurisdictional distance, as they did not include quarterly odometer readings. 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. After review, the Department disagrees with 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 or 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). FINDING Taxpayer’s protest is respectfully denied. February 3, 2026 Replaces Finding Document: New