in-20250625-IR-045250308NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 65-20241763 Indiana Overweight Proposed Assessment For The Year 2024 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; 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 Indiana-based trucking business. On June 26, 2024, the Indiana State Police (“ISP”) cited Taxpayer’s commercial motor vehicle for an overweight violation for being above the legally allowed total gross weight. As a result, the Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) issued Taxpayer a proposed assessment for an overweight violation under IC 9-20-18-14.5(d). Taxpayer protested the assessment and requested a hearing. An administrative hearing was held, and this Letter of Findings results. 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 vehicles under IC 9-20-18-14.5(d). Taxpayer argues in its protest letter that it should not be held responsible for the civil penalty. 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): “[t]he 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. 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. Taxpayer’s gross vehicle weight was 65,400 pounds. ISP cited Taxpayer’s vehicle for being 13,400 pounds over the maximum allowed gross weight in violation of IC 9-20-4-1. The Department imposed a “No Permit Available Civil Penalty” in accordance with IC 9-20-18-14.5(d)(2)(C) because Taxpayer was in excess of the legally allowable gross weight. In support of its protest, Taxpayer argues that the penalty should be eliminated because the employee had no control over the loading of the truck, and no scale was available at the site where the truck was loaded. Taxpayer stated that it would have been impossible under the circumstance to know the weight because of the loading conditions. Taxpayer asserts that loading is done by another party and Taxpayer is not allowed to review or exit the vehicle during loading. 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, both the driver axle and the tandem axle were in violation of the weight limits—with the tandem axle being 10,100 pounds over the allowable axle group weight. 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. April 8, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New