in-20251126-IR-045250674NRA: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE SUPPLEMENTAL LETTER OF FINDINGS: 41-20242297 International Registration Plan Assessment For the Reporting Period July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022 HOLDING Taxpayer was able to provide additional documents to reduce the proposed assessment; the Department will issue a supplemental audit bill. ISSUE

I. International Registration Plan Fees – 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 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 the Taxpayer. In accordance with IRP guidelines, the Department issued a proposed assessment. Taxpayer protested the proposed assessment, claiming to possess additional documentation that was missing from the initial audit. Taxpayer provided additional distance records and attended an administrative hearing. This Letter of Findings results. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. International Registration Plan Fees – Assessment.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer protests the imposition of additional IRP fees for the distance reporting period from July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022. The Department based its determination that additional IRP fees were due on the fact that Taxpayer did not have sufficient documentation available for review and verification of reported amounts of miles in each jurisdiction. Taxpayer lacked internal controls and processes to verify distance records, odometer readings, or continuity of jurisdictional travel. While Taxpayer utilized an electronic logging device (“ELD”) to maintain its distance records, the necessary information was not contained in those records. Therefore, the Department used revised mileage figures as provided under IRP. Those calculations resulted in the Department determining that additional IRP fees were due. 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. The Department first refers to IC 6-6-4.1-14, which states: IC 9-28-4-6 provides: IC 6-8.1-5-4 states, in part: IRP, Article X-1065 provides: IRP, Article X-1000 states that: IRP, Article X-1005 states that: IRP, Article X-1010 states that: Taxpayer protested the proposed assessment and, as part of its protest, provided additional documentation. Taxpayer records were related to both the International Fuel Tax Association, Inc. (“IFTA”) Articles of Agreement component and the IRP component. 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. As provided above, it is Taxpayer’s responsibility to maintain specific, detailed, and accurate records concerning each jurisdiction it traveled in. To the extent Taxpayer’s records are adequate to verify where it traveled, Taxpayer has partially met its burden imposed by the IRP and the Indiana Code. FINDING Taxpayer’s protest is sustained to the extent explained above, but denied in part as Taxpayer is not entitled to a waiver of the full amount. July 2, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New