in-20250430-IR-045250170NRA: NOTICE: IC 6-8.1-3-3.5 and IC 4-22-7-7 require the publication of this document in the Indiana Register. This document provides the general public with information about the Department’s official position concerning a specific set of facts and issues. This document is effective on its date of publication and remains in effect until the date it is superseded or deleted by the publication of another document in the Indiana Register. The “Holding” section of this document is provided for the convenience of the reader and is not part of the analysis contained in this Letter of Findings.

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 41-20232255 International Registration Plan Assessment For the Period October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022 HOLDING Business was not able to meet the burden proving the proposed assessment was wrong; therefore, the assessment remains as issued. ISSUE

I. International Registration Plan Fees – Assessment.

Authority: IC 6-6-4.1-14; IC 6-8.1-5-1; IC 6-8.1-5-4; IC 9-28-4-6; IRP, Article X-1000; IRP, Article X-1005; IRP, Article X-1010; IRP, Article X-1015; IRP, Article X- 1065; 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); Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014). Taxpayer protests the assessment of additional IRP fees. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is an Indiana business providing trucking services. The Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) audited Taxpayer related to the International Registration Plan (“IRP”). However, the Department could not complete a standard audit due to a lack of adequate records from the Taxpayer. In accordance with IRP guidelines, the Department issued a proposed assessment. Taxpayer protested the proposed assessment. The Department held an administrative hearing on September 9, 2024. This Letter of Findings results. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. International Registration Plan Fees – Assessment.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer protests the imposition of additional IRP fees for the period of October 1, 2021, to September 30, 2022. The Department based its determination that additional IRP fees were due on the fact that Taxpayer did not have sufficient documentation available for review. Therefore, an audit of the distance could not be conducted. The Department imposed an assessment of apportionable fees under IRP Article X-1015. 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. The Department first refers to IC 6-6-4.1-14, which states: IC 9-28-4-6 provides: IC 6-8.1-5-4 states: IRP, Article X-1065 provides: IRP, Article X-1000 states that: IRP, Article X-1005 states that: IRP, Article X-1010 states that: IRP, Article X-1015 provides that: If the Records produced by the Registrant for Audit do not, for the Registrant’s Fleet as a whole, meet the criterion in Section 1005(a), or if, within 30 calendar days of the issuance of a written request by the Base Jurisdiction, the Registrant produces no Records, the Base Jurisdiction shall impose on the Registrant an assessment in the amount of twenty percent of the Apportionable Fees paid by the Registrant for the registration of its Fleet in the Registration Year to which the Records pertain. In an instance where the Base Jurisdiction knows that it is the Registrant’s second such offense, the Base Jurisdiction shall impose an assessment of fifty percent of the Apportionable Fees paid by the Registrant for the registration of its Fleet in the Registration Year to which the Records pertain. When the Base Jurisdiction knows it is the Registrant’s third offense, and on any subsequent offenses of the Registrant known to the Base Jurisdiction, the Base Jurisdiction shall impose an assessment of 100 percent of the Apportionable Fees paid by the Registrant for the registration of its Fleet in the Registration Year to which the Records pertain. The Department based its determination that additional IRP fees were due on the fact that Taxpayer did not have sufficient documentation available for review. Therefore, an audit of the distance could not be conducted. Taxpayer protested the proposed assessment and stated that it would submit additional documentation. Taxpayer provided some additional documents during the protest review; however, those documents did not provide the information necessary to meet the IRP requirements. The information provided lacks the detail required by IRP rules. Under IRP Article X-1005 and IC 6-8.1-5-4, it is Taxpayer’s responsibility to maintain specific, detailed, and accurate information concerning its fuel purchases and jurisdiction miles. After review, the Department disagrees with Taxpayer. IRP Section 1005(a) specifically states that the records maintained by a registrant under Section 1000 shall be adequate to enable the base jurisdiction to verify the distances reported in the registrant’s application for apportioned registration and to evaluate the accuracy of the registrant’s distance accounting system for its fleet. IRP Section 1010 establishes that records containing the following elements shall be accepted by the base jurisdiction as adequate under Section 1005(a): the beginning and ending dates of the trip to which the records pertain; the origin and destination of the trip; the route of travel; the beginning and ending reading from the odometer, hubodometer, ECM, or any similar device for the trip; the total distance of the trip; the distance traveled in each jurisdiction; and the vehicle identification number or vehicle unit number. In this case, Taxpayer’s records are deficient under the requirements of IRP Article X-1005(a). There is insufficient documentation to verify the reported number of miles driven. No new documents regarding odometer readings were provided in the hearing process. Therefore, Taxpayer has not met the burden of proving the proposed assessment wrong, as required by IC 6-8.1-5-1(c). FINDING The Taxpayer’s protest is respectfully denied. February 12, 2025 Replaces Finding Document at: New