in-20250917-IR-045250437NRA: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 41-20242389 International Registration Plan For the Reporting Period July 1, 2021, to June 30, 2022 HOLDING Business was not able to meet the burden 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 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 requested and attended an administrative hearing. This Letter of Findings results. 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 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 was unable to verify 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 maintained a computer routing system that produced distance records, the necessary information was not contained on 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): The notice of proposed assessment is prima facie evidence that the [D]epartment’s claim for the unpaid tax is valid, including during an action appealed to the tax court under this chapter. The burden of proving that the proposed assessment is wrong rests with the person against whom the proposed assessment is made. 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: 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, stating that it submitted additional documentation. Taxpayer provided some supplementary documents during the protest process; however, those documents did not include the information necessary to meet the IRP requirements. Taxpayer’s records failed to provide sufficient documentation for all four quarters of the distance reporting period. Furthermore, Taxpayer’s submitted supplemental documentation only related to the IFTA component of its protest. IFTA and IRP are separate regulatory programs, and records that are satisfactory for one are not necessarily satisfactory for the other. 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-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 the Indiana Code. FINDING Taxpayer’s protest is respectfully denied. July 17, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New