in-20250625-IR-045250306NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE  LETTER OF FINDINGS: 65-20232324 Indiana Oversize/Overweight Civil Penalty For the Year 2023 HOLDING Motor Carrier provided sufficient documentation to establish that the civil penalty should be reduced. ISSUE

I. Motor Vehicles – Oversize/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 9-20-6-11; 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 oversize/overweight civil penalty. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is an Indiana-based trucking business. On September 18, 2023, the Indiana State Police (“ISP”) cited Taxpayer’s commercial motor vehicle for violating a special permit. As a result, the Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) issued Taxpayer a proposed assessment for a permit 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 – Oversize/Overweight Civil Penalty.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer protests the imposition of a penalty for an oversize/overweight permit violation of one of its trucks under IC 9-20-18-14.5(b). Taxpayer argues in its protest letter that the citation should be forgiven or reduced. Taxpayer provided a protest statement addressing the citation and penalty, a copy of the oversize/overweight permit, a bill of lading (“BOL”) provided to Taxpayer, a copy of the ISP traffic ticket issued to Taxpayer’s employee, as well as records sent by the Department as part of its protest. 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. 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. In accordance with IC 9-20-6-11, ISP cited Taxpayer’s vehicle for violating the terms of a special permit. The inspection report provides that Taxpayer’s commercial motor vehicle exceeded the permitted width of 16 feet. The Department imposed a Permit Violation Civil Penalty in accordance with IC 9-20-18-14.5(b) because Taxpayer was over the permitted width. Taxpayer argues that “[s]tandard width measurements are typically corner to corner” and asserts that the ISP utilized an “unconventional measuring tactic” when determining the width of its vehicle and thus, Taxpayer’s vehicle was deemed oversized. Taxpayer did not provide any documentation to support this claim, nor did Taxpayer provide any documentation to contradict the measurements provided by ISP in its inspection report. While Taxpayer has not established that the assessment of a civil penalty was wrong, IC 9-20-18-14.5 provides “not more than” language for the Department to consider when generating a proposed assessment amount. Considering all information gathered 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 28, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New