in-20250917-IR-045250438NRA: DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 41-20251081 International Registration Plan 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 – 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 requested a final determination without a hearing. The Department determined that the additional documentation provided by Taxpayer was enough for the Department to conduct a supplemental audit. 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. No distance and fuel records were provided during audit’s initial assessment. 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: Records containing the following elements shall be accepted by the Base Jurisdiction as adequate under Section 1005(a): IRP, Article X-1015 provides that: If the Records produced by the Registrant for Audit do not, for the Registrant’s Fleet as a whole, meet the criterion in Section 1005(a), or if, within 30 calendar days of the issuance of a written request by the Base Jurisdiction, the Registrant produces no Records, the Base Jurisdiction shall impose on the Registrant an assessment in the amount of twenty percent of the Apportionable Fees paid by the Registrant for the registration of its Fleet in the Registration Year to which the Records pertain. In an instance where the Base Jurisdiction knows that it is the Registrant’s second such offense, the Base Jurisdiction shall impose an assessment of fifty percent of the Apportionable Fees paid by the Registrant for the registration of its Fleet in the Registration Year to which the Records pertain. When the Base Jurisdiction knows it is the Registrant’s third offense, and on any subsequent offenses of the Registrant known to the Base Jurisdiction, the Base Jurisdiction shall impose an assessment of 100 percent of the Apportionable Fees paid by the Registrant for the registration of its Fleet in the Registration Year to which the Records pertain. The Base Jurisdiction shall distribute the amounts of assessment it collects under this Section on a pro rata basis to the other Jurisdictions in which the Fleet was registered. 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. After reviewing Taxpayer’s supplemental records, 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. The Department will recalculate the amount of IRP fees due to the extent established by the new documentation. 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 25, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New