in-20250528-IR-045250252NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 02-20241715 Corporate Income Tax For the 2022 Tax Year  HOLDING  Company failed to establish that its claim for refund was timely filed. ISSUE

I. Corporate Income Tax – Statute of Limitations.

Authority: IC 6-8.1-5-1; IC 6-8.1-9-1; 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); Medco Health Solutions, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 9 N.E.3d 263 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014). Taxpayer argues that the Department’s refund denial for corporate income tax was incorrect as an overpayment exists for that tax period. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is a corporation that filed a protest with the Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”). Taxpayer, on its protest submission, stated that the year at issue was 2019, and the issue being protested was a denied refund claim. However, as will be explained in the Discussion section, Taxpayer’s protest was spurred by a 2022 Notice of Proposed Assessment (“NOPA”) received from the Department. An administrative hearing was held, and this Letter of Findings results. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Corporate Income Tax – Statute of Limitations.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer’s protest letter, dated January 24, 2024, states that it is “protesting the denial of the 2019 refund on Form IT20 for [Taxpayer].” Taxpayer asserts that its “first indication that the department had never received the 2019 IT20 for [Taxpayer] came when [Taxpayer] received a letter dated November 27, 2023 regarding their 2022 Form IT20[,]” and that “[t]his letter showed that the 2019 NOL was not allowed by the department.” The November 27, 2023, letter was in fact a “Notice of Proposed Assessment” for the period ending December 31, 2022. Taxpayer also states: In other words, the 2022 NOPA spurred Taxpayer’s protest regarding a denied refund for 2019. Thus, this Letter of Finding is designated for the year 2022, but the substantive issue is regarding Taxpayer’s 2019 refund claim. Turning to the law on refund claims, IC 6-8.1-9-1(a) affords a taxpayer a statutory right to file a claim for refund. This statute provides, in part: And: With that in mind, the Department notes that as a threshold issue, it is Taxpayer’s responsibility to establish that the existing tax 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. The burden of proving that the proposed assessment is wrong rests with the person against whom the proposed assessment is made.” 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). Consequently, a taxpayer is required to provide documentation explaining and supporting his or her challenge that the Department’s position is wrong. Further, “[W]hen [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 law contained within this decision shall be entitled to deference. The protest letter also states, “To our knowledge, [Taxpayer] had not received any letters from the department on the 2020 or 2021 returns stating that the $2,000 applied from the 2019 return was disallowed” and that “[s]ince 2020 and 2021 were both loss years, we had no way of knowing that the department did not agree with these returns.” Taxpayer asserts that, “[i]f we had known, we could have addressed the issue before the statute ran out on the refund/overpayment.” Taxpayer’s CPA (and Power of Attorney for the protest) asserts in e-mail correspondence that although his office did not have the “software” to e-file Form IT-20 at that time (i.e., 2020), that nonetheless his “conclusion is that my client was given a paper copy of Form IT-20 between” the dates of March 24, 2020 and March 30, 2020. The Taxpayer’s CPA then states his client “periodically has problems with the mail,” and then reaches a speculative conclusion: “I do not doubt that the return was lost by the post office.” As noted, Taxpayer concedes that it did not timely request the refund (as Taxpayer’s CPA put it: “[i]f we had known, we could have addressed the issue before the statute ran out on the refund/overpayment.”). Regarding refunds, the Indiana Tax Court stated in Medco Health Solutions, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 9 N.E.3d 263 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014): Pursuant to IC 6-8.1-9-1, a taxpayer who believes that it has overpaid any kind of tax must file a timely claim for refund with the Department. In the present case, Taxpayer concedes that it failed to comply with IC 6-8.1-9-1. Given the untimely filing of the refund request, Taxpayer’s protest is denied. FINDING Taxpayer’s protest is denied. March 31, 2025 Replaces Finding Document: New