in-20250917-IR-045250455NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE MEMORANDUM OF DECISION: 02-20211027 Corporate Income Tax For The Year 2016 HOLDING Corporation established that its request for a refund was timely.

I. Corporate Income Tax – Statute of Limitations.

Authority: IC 6-3-4-3; IC 6-3-4-6; IC 6-8.1-9-1; 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); 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). Taxpayer protests a denial of refund. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is an out-of-state corporation doing business in Indiana. Taxpayer regularly files income tax returns with the Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”). On May 20, 2020, Taxpayer submitted several claims for refund to the Department. The Department denied two of these claims. Taxpayer timely protested, and the Department held an administrative hearing. This Memorandum of Decision results. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Individual Income Tax – Statute of Limitations.

DISCUSSION Taxpayers filed a Claim for Refund form (“GA-110L”) with the Department on May 20, 2020, requesting that two different payments be refunded — a $33,636.72 payment made May 31, 2017, and a $115,000 payment made on April 30, 2014. Taxpayer stated that both payments were made for the 2016 tax year and that the $115,000 payment was requested due to adjustments made pursuant to a federal audit. The Department denied the refunds initially on May 26, 2020, because a GA-110L is not the correct form to use to request an income tax refund. The Department instructed Taxpayer to amend its corporate income tax return if it wanted a refund. Taxpayer filed the amended returns on June 8, 2020, and requested a refund on the amended returns. The Department denied the refund listed on the amended return because the request was outside of the statute of limitations. Where a taxpayer is challenging the Department’s final determination, the taxpayer is required to provide documentation explaining and supporting its challenge. Poorly developed and 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). Additionally, “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.’” Indiana Dep’t 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 are entitled to deference. IC 6-8.1-9-1(a) affords a taxpayer a statutory right to file a claim for refund. The statute provides in part: IC 6-3-4-3 requires Indiana income tax returns to be filed on “the 15th day of the fourth month following the close of the taxable year.” If a due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, a national legal holiday recognized by the federal government, or a statewide holiday, the due date is moved to the next business day. Id. If a taxpayer’s federal return is adjusted by the federal authorities in a way that affects the taxpayer’s adjusted gross income, the taxpayer is required to file an amended return with the Department within 180 days of the adjustment. IC 6-3-4-6(e). An adjustment is considered to have occurred when “[a] taxpayer waives the restrictions on assessment and collection of all, or any part, of an underpayment of federal income tax by signing a federal Form 870[.]” IC 6-3-4-6(c)(4). The $33,636.72 payment was made on May 31, 2017, and Taxpayer requested a refund on May 20, 2020. The request is therefore timely. Taxpayer stated at the hearing that its federal tax returns for the 2014-2016 tax years were adjusted by the federal government. Taxpayer provided a copy of the Form 870 that it signed to conclude the federal adjustment and waive all objections to it. This form was dated November 21, 2018. Thus, the due date for Taxpayer’s amended return for the tax years at issue was 180 days afterwards — May 20, 2019. Therefore, Taxpayer’s May 20, 2020 request for a refund of the $115,000 payment was also timely, even if the amended return required by the Department was provided after the 180 days had expired. The Department notes that even though Taxpayer requested a refund using an improper form, the Department instructed Taxpayer on the correct way to request a refund, and Taxpayer promptly complied. The Department reminds Taxpayer that it must request corporate income tax refunds by filing an initial or amended corporate income tax return and not in any other way. Because “each tax year stands alone,” Miller Brewing Co. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 903 N.E.2d 64, 69 (Ind. 2009), the Department cautions Taxpayer that future refund requests made improperly may be denied. Taxpayer has demonstrated through documentation that the two refund requests under protest were timely. This Memorandum of Decision takes no position on whether a refund is owed. The Department will review Taxpayer’s refund request and determine whether Taxpayer is owed a refund. FINDING Taxpayers’ protest regarding the statute of limitations is sustained. The Department will review its records to determine whether Taxpayers are owed a refund. July 11, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New