in-20251126-IR-045250677NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE FINAL ORDER DENYING REFUND: 47-20231678 Proportional Use Fuel Tax Credit For Year 2022 HOLDING Out-of-state motor carrier failed to meet its burden of establishing that it submitted its Proportional Use Credit (“PUC”) refund claim within the quarterly period for which the PUC was claimed. ISSUE

I. Motor Carrier Fuel Tax – PUC Refund.

Authority: IC 6-6-4.1-4.8; IC 6-6-4.1-10; Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. Kimball Int’l Inc., 520 N.E.2d 454 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Taxpayer argues it timely filed a refund claim based on its proportional use credit. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is an out-of-state motor carrier business. Taxpayer electronically submitted a “Claim for Proportional Use Credit” form (“MCS-1789”) for the fourth quarter of 2022 (“Q4 2022”) on January 27, 2023. Taxpayer claimed credit for fuel consumed in Q4 2022 and sought a refund of motor fuel tax it paid during that period. The Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) denied Taxpayer’s claim for a refund. The denial letter explained the reason for denying the refund: Taxpayer protested the assessment and waived its right to a hearing. In its protest submission, Taxpayer argued that the Department was wrong when it denied the refund on the grounds that the claim was untimely filed. This Order Denying Refund results. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Motor Carrier Fuel Tax – PUC Refund.

DISCUSSION 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 the refund. Taxpayer argues that it submitted its claim filing to the Department before the due date of the quarterly return for the taxable period for which the PUC was claimed. See IC 6-6-4.1-4.8. The corresponding due date to file a PUC refund claim for Q4 2022, per statute, was January 31, 2023. The credit is authorized under IC 6-6-4.1-4.8, which requires the Department to refund tax based on a carrier’s “proportional use” of motor fuel. IC 6-6-4.1-4.8(c) provides: IC 6-6-4.1-4.8(d) imposes a “cap” on the dollar amount carriers may be refunded each year. In small part, IC 6-6-4.1-4.8(d) provides: IC 6-6-4.1-4.8(c) provides additional requirements specifically addressing instances in which the total amounts claimed exceed the $3,500,000 limit. IC 6-6-4.1-4.8(b) explains the means by which a carrier is required to submit its claim. In part, the statute provides: IC 6-6-4.1-10 requires that a “carrier shall submit each quarterly report required under this subsection on or before the last day of the month immediately following that quarter.” The Department is required to address claims submitted on an MCS-1789. The form explains that in order to claim the credit, the carrier must, in part, “File the quarterly IFTA-101 or MCFT-101 tax returns on or before the due date shown on the return” and “Submit the [MCS-1789] by the due date on the form.” Per IC 6-6-4.1-4.8, a PUC refund claim must also include the quarterly report that corresponds with the quarter in which the claim is being made. Here, the prescribed due date for a PUC refund claim is the filing deadline for the relevant quarterly taxable period. The filing deadline for the quarterly taxable period for Q4 2022 was January 31, 2023. Taxpayer provided a summary of events with its protest submission, which included dates that Taxpayer claims it both submitted documents to, and received documents from, the Department. The Department also conducted its own internal review of correspondence with Taxpayer to determine a timeline of events. Based on information provided by Taxpayer and from the Department’s own review, the Department determined that Taxpayer submitted its MCS-1789 to the Department on January 27, 2023. Upon review of the submission, the Department noted that the MCS-1789 was not signed by the Taxpayer or an authorized agent of Taxpayer. On February 7, 2023, the Department issued a corrections letter to Taxpayer informing it that its PUC refund claim filing was deficient because the MCS-1789 was unsigned. The corrections letter provided Taxpayer with instructions on how to cure the incomplete claim stating, in part, that the “claim form is missing an authorized signature. Please sign the enclosed affidavit and submit it to MCS.” The letter further stated that the affidavit “must be postmarked no later than 10 business days from the date of this letter or the claim will be denied.” According to the deadline set out in the corrections letter, Taxpayer had until February 21, 2023—exactly ten business days from the date of the corrections letter—to submit the affidavit to the Department to keep its PUC refund claim eligible for consideration. In its protest submission, Taxpayer argued that it filed its PUC refund claim for Q4 2022 on January 27, 2023, and that it mistakenly forgot to sign the MCS-1789 before emailing its submission to the Department. Taxpayer stated that it received the corrections letter on February 14, 2023, but due to personal matters, it was unable to submit the affidavit and IFTA return within the deadline. Taxpayer further stated that it “believe[s] it was postmarked and send back around 15th of February.” The Department’s own internal review sought to confirm the timeline of events and when it received Taxpayer’s initial MCS-1789 submission, as well as when the Department received the affidavit. Based on this review, the Department determined that the original MCS-1789 submission was received on January 27, 2023, but was submitted unsigned and incomplete. The Department also determined that Taxpayer’s signed affidavit was not received until March 29, 2023. Though Taxpayer claims in its protest filing that it mailed the affidavit before the deadline, Taxpayer provided no evidence to the Department showing that the submitted affidavit was postmarked on or before February 21, 2023, deadline. As previously stated, any claim for a PUC refund must be submitted on a form prescribed by the Department and must be filed with the quarterly return for the taxable period for which the PUC is claimed. Though Taxpayer used the prescribed form to file its PUC refund claim, the form was missing an authorized signature as required; therefore, Taxpayer’s PUC refund claim was incomplete as of January 31, 2023, the filing deadline for the quarterly taxable period for Q4 2022. In assessing Taxpayer’s objection, the Department bears in mind that the general rule is that “tax exemptions are strictly construed in favor of taxation and against the exemption.” Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. Kimball Int’l Inc., 520 N.E.2d 454, 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). Based on the plain reading of IC 6-6-4.1-4.8, Taxpayer is required to provide the Department a completed MCS-1789 and a copy of its quarterly tax return on or before the deadline of the relevant tax quarter. Though Taxpayer filed a submission for a PUC refund claim by the deadline, that submission was incomplete. The Department granted Taxpayer a brief extension to submit an affidavit to correct the incomplete MC-1789, but Taxpayer did not meet the extended deadline when it turned in the affidavit. The Department’s determination that Taxpayer’s claim was untimely rests on the fact that Taxpayer failed to provide a signed MCS-1789 to the Department by the deadline. Calculations and disbursements of PUC to eligible filers are based on timely filing, which allows the Department to adhere to applicable law. Though the Department acknowledges Taxpayer’s attempt to file its MCS-1789 by the filing deadline and its effort to correct its deficient PUC refund claim submission, Taxpayer has not provided any evidence to the Department showing that the corrected filing was submitted to the Department before the deadline established in the corrections letter. Thus, Taxpayer failed to submit to the Department a complete PUC refund claim before the period closed to submit PUC refund claims for Q4 2022. Taxpayer has not proven that it timely filed a completed PUC claim with all the required documentation. Therefore, the protest is respectfully denied. FINDING Taxpayer’s protest is respectfully denied. August 11, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New