in-20250827-IR-045250422NRA: INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 65-20231921 Indiana Overweight Civil Penalty For the Year 2023 HOLDING Motor Carrier provided sufficient evidence to establish that the civil penalty should be reduced. ISSUE

I. Motor Vehicles – Overweight Penalty.

Authority: IC 6-8.1-5-1; IC 6-8.1-1-1; IC 9-20-1-1; IC 9-20-1-2; IC 9-20-4-1; IC 9-20-18-7; IC 9-20-18-14.5; 45 IAC 22-1-2; Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014); 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). Taxpayer protests the assessment of an overweight civil penalty. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is an out-of-state motor carrier business. On May 19, 2023, the Indiana State Police (“ISP”) cited Taxpayer’s commercial motor vehicle for violating a permit. As a result, the Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) issued Taxpayer a proposed assessment for an overweight violation. Taxpayer protested the assessment and provided a protest submission form that omitted its choice for potential resolution. The Department in its protest review attempted to correspond and discuss with Taxpayer its preference regarding the path to resolving its protest. The Department subsequently then scheduled and held an administrative hearing. Taxpayer did not attend the administrative hearing. This Letter of Findings results from the materials provided to the Department by Taxpayer with its protest submission and on the Department’s records. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Motor Vehicles – Overweight Penalty.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer protests the imposition of a penalty for an overweight violation of one of its commercial motor vehicles under IC 9-20-18-14.5(b). Taxpayer argues in its protest letter mitigating factors should dismiss or reduce the civil penalty amount. 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. According to IC 9-20-1-1, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in [IC Art. 9-20], a person, including a transport operator, may not operate or move upon a highway a vehicle or combination of vehicles of a size or weight exceeding the limitations provided in [IC Art. 9-20].” According to IC 9-20-1-2, the owner of a vehicle “may not cause or knowingly permit to be operated or moved upon a highway a vehicle or combination of vehicles of a size or weight exceeding the limitations provided in [IC Art. 9-20].” IC 9-20-18-14.5 authorizes the Department to impose civil penalties against motor carriers that obtain a permit under IC Art. 9-20 and violate IC Art. 9-20 (“Permit Violation Civil Penalty”) or are required, but fail, to obtain a permit under IC Art. 9-20 (“No Permit Civil Penalty”). The Department may also impose a civil penalty for vehicles or loads in excess of the size or weight limits provided in IC Art. 9-20 and for which no permit is available for the excess size or weight (“No Permit Available Civil Penalty”). IC 6-8.1-1-1 states that fees and penalties stemming from IC Art. 9-20 violations are a “listed tax.” Under IC 9-20-18-14.5(a) these listed taxes are in addition to and separate from any settlement or agreement made with a local court or political subdivision regarding the traffic stop. IC 9-20-18-7 provides defenses which taxpayers may rely on when they submit their protest to the Department. ISP cited Taxpayer’s vehicle for violating the terms of its permit. Two issues were cited by the ISP officer. Taxpayer’s gross vehicle weight was 103,040 pounds at the time of inspection, 12,040 pounds over the permitted maximum weight of 91,000 pounds. Additionally, both the drive and trailer tandem axles were over the legal weight limit of 34,000 pounds for tandem axles, weighing approximately 38,520 pounds and 52,460 pounds, respectively. Thus, ISP cited Taxpayer’s vehicle for being in violation of IC 9-20-4-1. The Department imposed a “Permit Violation Civil Penalty” in accordance with IC 9-20-18-14.5(b). Taxpayer argues that it did not know its vehicle was overweight at the time of the citation. Taxpayer stated that its employee “got loaded with more product than supposed to and this is what caused civil penalty assigned.” Taxpayer also asserted that its employee intended to weigh its vehicle but that no scale was available or open to do so. Taxpayer’s protest submission did not include any corroborating documentation for these arguments. Taxpayer does not try to argue that there was any mistake in the weighing of the truck or that the load could have been under the allowable axle weight. It remains that, although Taxpayer was not in control of the loading and no scale was available during loading to weigh the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle was over the permissible gross weight in violation of the Taxpayer’s permit and Indiana code. Taxpayer also argues that it “does not have a history of oversize/overweight civil penalties.” Prior to the enactment of Departmental regulation 45 IAC 22-1-2 on December 17, 2024, it was common practice for the Department to issue one warning letter before a taxpayer received a civil penalty assessment for violating IC 9-20-18-14.5. On review of the Department’s records, Taxpayer had previously received a warning letter for its vehicle being overweight on a trailer tandem axle in March of 2023. Thus, Taxpayer had been put on notice of the legal requirements for its commercial motor vehicles prior to the date of the citation. While Taxpayer did not establish the vehicle in question was at or under the allowable gross weight, IC 9-20-18-14.5 provides “not more than” language for the Department to consider when generating a proposed assessment amount. Considering Taxpayer’s history of compliance at the time of this inspection and information provided by the Taxpayer during the protest process, the Department will generate a proposed assessment with a reduced amount as authorized by its statutory discretion and this Letter of Findings. FINDING Taxpayer’s protest is sustained in part and denied to the extent that Taxpayer did not prove the entire penalty should be removed. June 26, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New