in-20250528-IR-045250268NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE MEMORANDUM OF DECISION: 04-20251249 Sales and Use Tax For Tax Year 2023 HOLDING Taxpayer established that the Department’s denial of his refund request was incorrect. ISSUE

I. Sales and Use Tax– Request for Refund.

Authority: IC 6-2.5-2-1; IC 6-2.5-3-1; IC 6-2.5-3-2; IC 6-2.5-3-6; IC 6-8.1-9-1; Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014); Rhoade v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 774 N.E.2d 1044 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2002); 45 IAC 2.2-2-1; 45 IAC 2.2-3-4. Taxpayer protest denial of a refund for Indiana use tax. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is an Indiana resident. In September 2023, Taxpayer purchased a vehicle. At the time of purchase, Taxpayer did not pay Indiana sales tax. In November 2023, Taxpayer submitted a Form ST-115 Consumer Use Tax Return (“Form ST-115”) and remitted use tax pursuant to that return to the Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) via check. In May 2024, Taxpayer went to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles (“BMV”) with the Bill of Sale to title the vehicle in his name. The BMV collected sales tax when Taxpayer titled the vehicle because the Bill of Sale reflected that sales tax had not been collected at the point of purchase. Taxpayer then submitted a Form GA-110L Request for Refund with the Department for the use tax he paid via check to the Department. The Department denied the refund request. Taxpayer disagreed and submitted a protest to that effect. Taxpayer waived his right to a hearing. This Memorandum of Decision is written in reliance on documentation provided by Taxpayer and the Department’s records. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Sales and Use Tax – Request for Refund.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer argues that he remitted use tax twice on the same transaction and therefore his request for refund was incorrectly denied by the Department. In support of his protest, Taxpayer provided a copy of his Form ST-115 submission to the Department, a copy of the check he remitted to the Department, the Bill of Sale for the vehicle, and a copy of a receipt from the BMV. Indiana law affords taxpayers a statutory right to file a claim for refund where, “a person has paid more tax than the person determines is legally due for a particular taxable period…” IC 6-8.1-9-1(a). Additionally, “[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.’” Indiana 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. Indiana imposes an excise tax called “the state gross retail tax” or “sales tax” on retail transactions made in Indiana. IC 6-2.5-2-1(a); 45 IAC 2.2-2-1. A person who acquires property in a retail transaction is liable for the sales tax on the transaction. IC 6-2.5-2-1(b). Indiana also imposes a complementary excise tax called a “use tax” on “the storage, use, or consumption of tangible personal property in Indiana if the property was acquired in a retail transaction, regardless of the location of that transaction or of the retail merchant making that transaction.” IC 6-2.5-3-2(a). “Use” means the “exercise of any right or power of ownership over tangible personal property.” IC 6-2.5-3-1(a). The use tax is a functional equivalent to the sales tax.  See Rhoade v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 774 N.E.2d 1044, 1047 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2002). Tangible personal property purchased in Indiana and stored, used, or otherwise consumed in Indiana is subject to Indiana use tax for such property unless the Indiana sales tax has been collected at the point of purchase. 45 IAC 2.2-3-4. The person liable for the use tax shall pay the use tax to the Department or, in the case of a vehicle, to the titling agency when the person applies for a title for the vehicle.  IC 6-2.5-3-6(c) and (d)(1). In reviewing the documentation provided by Taxpayer, it is clear that Taxpayer remitted use tax on the purchase of the vehicle twice. Taxpayer provided a copy of his Form ST-115 which reflects payment of use tax in the amount of $1,140.64 processed on November 29, 2023. Taxpayer also provided a copy of a receipt from the BMV from May 8, 2024, which reflects payment of use tax in the amount of $1,140.58. The Department erred when it denied Taxpayer’s request for refund. Taxpayer is entitled to a refund as originally requested. FINDING Taxpayers protest is sustained. March 28, 2024 Replaces Finding Document: New