in-20250430-IR-045250192NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE FINAL ORDER DENYING REFUND: 03-20231940 Withholding Tax For the 2019 Tax Year  HOLDING  Taxpayer failed to establish that the claim for refund was timely filed. ISSUE

I. Withholding Tax – Statute of Limitations.

Authority: IC 6-8.1-9-1; IC 6-3-4-8; Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., 87 N.E.3d 462 (Ind. 2017); Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014); Medco Health Solutions, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 9 N.E.3d 263 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014); 45 IAC 3.1-1-97. Taxpayer argues that the Department’s refund denial for 2019 withholding tax was incorrect as an overpayment exists for that tax period. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer filed a claim for refund with the Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”). On April 14, 2023, the Department issued a letter to Taxpayer denying the refund claim. Taxpayer then filed a Protest Submission Form (“Form”) protesting the Department’s denial of a refund claim. Taxpayer marked on the Form “Final determination without a hearing.” That selection means that a taxpayer is forgoing a hearing and asking the Department to “make its decision based on the written protest and documentation (if any) the taxpayer presents with the protest, and waives the right to a hearing.” Thus, this Final Order Denying Refund was written based upon the information provided by Taxpayer with his protest. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Withholding Tax – Statute of Limitations.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer protests the Department’s refund denial, with Taxpayer stating that he “protest[s] the denial of my claim for refund of overpayment of taxes.” “[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 tax law contained within this decision shall be entitled to deference. 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: An Indiana employer is required to “withhold, collect, and pay over income tax on wages paid by such employer to such employee . . . [in] the amount prescribed in withholding instructions issued by the department.” IC 6-3-4-8(a). Subsection (a)(1) specifically provides that the employer is liable for the amount that it was required to withhold. These statutory requirements are restated in 45 IAC 3.1-1-97, which also explains that “[i]n the case of delinquency or nonpayment of withholding tax, the employer is liable for such tax, penalties, and interest.” Id. The Department’s denial letter states in pertinent part that Taxpayer’s protest was denied because “[y]our request and claim for a refund were filed outside of the time frame and thus must be denied for the following filing period: December 31, 2019[.]” Taxpayer, in turn, states: Taxpayer also states that he “think[s] the design of the site with the balances listed in green is unfairly misleading and and warrants an exception to the 3 year rule” and that his “application for refunds was just a little over 3 months past the 3 year limit[.]” One of Taxpayer’s arguments is, in effect, that he did not know about the statute of limitations (“there was no way for me to know…”). As the Indiana Supreme Court has stated in pertinent part, “A longstanding legal principle presumes that citizens know the law and must obey it….” Bellwether Properties, LLC v. Duke Energy Indiana, Inc., 87 N.E.3d 462, 467 (Ind. 2017). 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): Medco Health Solutions, at 266 (emphasis in the original; emphasis added). Pursuant to IC 6-8.1-9-1, a taxpayer who believes that he or she has overpaid any kind of tax must file a timely claim for refund with the Department. In the present case, Taxpayer concedes that he 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. February 12, 2025 Replaces Finding Document at: New