in-20250430-IR-045250174NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 65-20242468 Indiana Overweight Civil Penalty For The Year 2024 HOLDING Motor Carrier provided sufficient evidence to establish that the civil penalty should be reduced. 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 Indiana trucking company. On August 22, 2024, the Indiana State Police (“ISP”) cited Taxpayer’s commercial motor vehicle for an overweight violation for being overweight on a tridem axle group. 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 this civil penalty should be eliminated and provided reasoning in its protest submission. 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 6,360 pounds overweight on a tridem axle 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) 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. Taxpayer argues that the penalty should be eliminated because the driver was unfamiliar with the vehicle and failed to check his air axle setting. Additionally, Taxpayer explained that it had no control over the loading. While Taxpayer has not established that the tridem axle in question was at or under the allowable 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 gathered during the hearing, 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. February 25, 2025 Replaces Finding Document at: New