in-20251126-IR-045250651NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE FINAL ORDER DENYING REFUND: 01-20241385 Indiana Individual Income Tax For The Tax Year 2019 HOLDING Married couple failed to substantiate that they timely filed the required state income tax return to claim a refund. ISSUE

I. Indiana Individual Income Tax – Claim for Refund – Statute of Limitations.

Authority: I.R.C. § 6511; IC 6-8.1-5-4; IC 6-8.1-9-1; IC 6-8.1-6-1; Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014); Miller Brewing Co. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 903 N.E.2d 64 (Ind. 2009); Express Scripts Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 170 N.E.3d 273 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2021); Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012); Scopelite v. Indiana Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); I.R.S. Notice 2023-21, 2023-11 I.R.B. 563; 45 IAC 15-9-2. Taxpayers protest the refund denial of individual income tax for the tax year 2019. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayers, Husband and Wife, are Indiana residents who work in Indiana and file joint income tax returns to report their income subject to federal and Indiana income taxes. In August 2023, Taxpayers filed their 2019 Indiana Individual income tax return, Form IT-40 (“IT-40”), claiming a refund. The Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) reviewed and denied Taxpayers’ claim for refund because their refund claim was not timely filed. In its September 2023 denial letter, the Department explained, in part: Taxpayers submitted additional documents and protested the refund denial. Taxpayers requested that the Department make the final determination without an administrative hearing. This final determination results based on the documents submitted by Taxpayers and information available within the file.

I. Indiana Individual Income Tax – Claim for Refund – Statute of Limitations.

DISCUSSION Taxpayers protested the Department’s refund denial. Taxpayers claimed that they were entitled to the refund because they timely filed their refund claim. The issue is thus whether Taxpayers’ supporting documents demonstrated that they were entitled to the refund. IC 6-8.1-9-1(a) affords a taxpayer the right to file a claim for refund if the taxpayer determines that he or she has paid more tax than the amount is legally due for a particular taxable period. “A claim for refund can only be initiated pursuant to IC [§] 6-8.1-9-1” because the Department “has no legal method of generating a claim for refund.” 45 IAC 15-9-2(b). To obtain a refund, the person must file the claim with the Department “within three (3) years after the later of . . . [t]he due date of the return [or the] date of payment.” IC 6-8.1-9-1(a). Importantly, “each tax year stands alone.” Miller Brewing Co. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 903 N.E.2d 64, 69 (Ind. 2009). The refund claim must include certain verifiable information such as the amount of the refund to which the person is entitled, the reasons why the person is entitled to the refund, the tax period for which the overpayment is claimed, and the year and date of the overpayment. 45 IAC 15-9-2(d). Further, the claim for refund is required to be filed on the form prescribed by the Department. Id. Additionally, if the Internal Revenue Service (“I.R.S.”) “allows a person an extension on the person’s federal income tax return, the corresponding due dates for the person’s Indiana income tax returns are automatically extended for the same period as the federal extension, plus thirty (30) days.” IC 6-8.1-6-1(c)(1). I.R.S. Notice 2023-21, 2023-11 I.R.B. 563, 2023 WL 2301700, available https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-23-21.pdf (last visited July 16, 2025), explains that the original due date to file the income tax returns for 2019 was postponed to July 15, 2020. But “the postponements did not lengthen the lookback periods under [I.R.C.] § 6511(b)(2)(A).” As such, qualified taxpayers — who (i) filed their 2019 tax returns between April 15, 2019, and July 15, 2019, and (ii) had no valid extension — could seek relief under Notice 2023-21. IC 6-8.1-9-1(j) also explains: Further, IC 6-8.1-5-4(a) requires that “[e]very person subject to a listed tax must keep books and records so that the department can determine the amount, if any, of the person’s liability for that tax by reviewing those books and records . . . including invoices, register tapes, receipts, and canceled checks.” The taxpayer is required to provide documentation to explain and support its challenge to the Department’s denial. When an agency is charged with enforcing a statute, such as the Department here, the courts defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of that statute “over an equally reasonable interpretation by another party.” Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579, 583 (Ind. 2014). Poorly developed or non-cogent arguments are subject to waiver. Scopelite v. Indiana Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480, 486 n.9 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012). The taxpayer, when submitting evidence as part of the taxpayer’s protest, needs to specify and explain the portions of the evidence that taxpayer believes to be relevant. As the Indiana Tax Court has previously noted (in the context of a summary judgment motion): “the Court will not consider” exhibits “on the off chance that it might find, on its own and undirected, some fact that supports” a claim, and “the Court is not required to search for specific facts on which” a party relies. Express Scripts Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 170 N.E.3d 273, 279 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2021). When an agency is charged with enforcing a statute, courts defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of that statute “over an equally reasonable interpretation by another party.” Indiana Dep’t of State Rev. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579, 583 (Ind. 2014). In this instant case, Taxpayers protested the denial. Taxpayers contended: To support their protest, Taxpayers offered additional documents including payment receipts for services in August 2023, their I.R.S. arrangement for the tax year 2022, their refund request to the software seller, and a redacted bank statement. Upon review, however, the Department is not able to agree. First, as mentioned, “each tax year stands alone.” As such, Taxpayers’ documents concerning their arrangement with the I.R.S. for the tax year 2022 were beyond the scope of this protest. Additionally, Taxpayers’ documentation showed that they purchased a commercial off-the-shelf software in 2020, but their supporting documents did not establish that they took steps to file their tax returns. Crucially, Taxpayers’ documents provided no confirmation number of their tax filings — similar to the function of a postmark used by the United States Postal Service — to substantiate they timely filed their 2019 tax returns in 2020. Taxpayers’ documents also failed to demonstrate that they obtained any valid extensions in 2020 or there were any federal modifications concerning their 2019 tax filing. Rather, Taxpayers’ supporting documentation demonstrated that their original 2019 return was postmarked August 18, 2023, which exceeded the above-mentioned statute of limitations. To conclude, as mentioned above, a claim for refund can only be initiated pursuant to IC 6-8.1-9-1 subject to the above-mentioned applicable statute of limitations. Given the totality of the circumstances, in the absence of other verifiable documentation, the Department is not able to agree that Taxpayers were entitled to a refund because their claim postmarked August 18, 2023, was not timely filed. FINDING Taxpayers’ protest is respectfully denied. August 1, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New