in-20250827-IR-045250423NRA: INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 65-20242868 Indiana Overweight Civil Penalty For the Year 2022 HOLDING Motor Carrier did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the civil penalty should not be assessed. Therefore, Motor Carrier’s protest is respectfully denied. ISSUE

I. Motor Vehicles – Overweight Civil 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; 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 October 23, 2024, the Indiana State Police (“ISP”) cited Taxpayer’s commercial motor vehicle for an overweight violation for being overweight on a tandem axle. As a result, the Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) issued Taxpayer a proposed assessment for an overweight violation. Taxpayer protested the assessment, requesting a final determination without a hearing. This Letter of Findings results. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Motor Vehicles – Overweight Civil Penalty.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer protests the imposition of a penalty for an overweight violation of one of its commercial vehicles under IC 9-20-18-14.5(d). Taxpayer argues that the penalty should be dismissed because a prior “ticket” that resulted from the citation was already paid in Jackson County, Indiana. Taxpayer provided a protest letter, copies of the ISP’s oversize/overweight vehicle examination report and the driver/vehicle examination report issued to Taxpayer’s employee, as well as the Department’s civil penalty proposed assessment issued to Taxpayer. 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 being 3,200 pounds overweight on the trailer tandem axle in violation of IC 9-20-4-1. IC 9-20-4-1(2)(A) states that “the weight concentrated on the roadway surface from any tandem axle group may not exceed the following: thirty-four thousand (34,000) pounds total weight.” The Department imposed a “No Permit Available Civil Penalty” in accordance with IC 9-20-18-14.5(d) because Taxpayer was in excess of the legal per axle group weight. Under IC Art. 9-20, no permit is available for instances where axles are overweight. Thus, the civil penalty issued by the Department for Taxpayer’s violation of IC 9-20-4-1 was duly levied. Taxpayer argues that it should not have to pay the civil penalty issued by the Department because it already paid a ticket that resulted from the citation. Taxpayer further states that it “is being penalized twice for one infraction.” However, Taxpayer asserted “our driver was already cited for this.” The ticket referenced by Taxpayer in its protest letter was in fact issued to the Taxpayer’s employee, or the driver, of the vehicle and load cited, not the Taxpayer itself. Per IC 9-20-18-14.5, “the civil penalties imposed under this section are in addition to other civil penalties that may be imposed under IC 8 and IC 9. Notwithstanding section 12 of this chapter, a civil penalty imposed under this section . . . is imposed on the carrier transporting the vehicle or load.” Here the ticket that was paid at the county or municipal level is in addition to the penalty imposed by the Department due to the Taxpayer’s vehicle being overweight on a tandem axle. County or municipal tickets are not handled by the Department. Taxpayer did not provide any mitigating evidence to dismiss the civil penalty or lessen the penalty amount. In this case, a carrier transporting loads more than the legal weight for which no permit is available to allow for such excess weight on a tandem axle group is subject to a civil penalty; therefore, it is appropriate for Taxpayer to receive a “No Permit Available Civil Penalty” for being over the allowable weight limit on a tandem axle group. FINDING Taxpayer’s protest is denied. June 23, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New