in-20250326-IR-045250140NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 65-20232356 Indiana Overweight Civil Penalty For The Year 2023 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 September 11, 2023, the Indiana State Police (“ISP”) cited Taxpayer’s commercial motor vehicle for an overweight violation for being overweight on a tandem axle. 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 with a hearing. A hearing was held, and 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 it should not have been cited for an overweight penalty on an axle group because it was still under the gross allowable weight. Additionally, Taxpayer argues that the penalty would be burdensome as it is a small trucking company consisting of two employees and three trucks. 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 [in Indiana] 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 violate the terms of a permit obtained 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 9,825 pounds overweight on a tandem 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, “[Taxpayer’s] understanding of the Weight Law, the way it is written[,] is a tri axle truck is allowed 70,000 pounds gross weight. I feel that is how it should be enforced and that the [Department of Transportation] Officers should not be weighing individual axles on a tri axle [truck].” Taxpayer asserted its commercial vehicle was less than 70,000 pounds, which it believes to be the allowable gross weight. However, the ISP ticket issued to Taxpayer’s employee provides only a citation for the vehicle being in excess of the legal per axle group weight. IC 9-20-4-1(2)(A) clearly states that “[t]he weight concentrated on the roadway surface from any tandem axle group may not exceed the following: thirty-four thousand (34,000) pounds total weight.” Taxpayer’s truck was cited for being overweight on a tandem axle. Thus, the civil penalty was duly levied, and Taxpayer’s argument regarding gross weight is not applicable to this protest. However, during the hearing, Taxpayer explained that when its vehicles leave the load site, they are only capable of measuring the gross weight and not the axle weight. Additionally, Taxpayer and its employees have no control over how the load is placed into the truck. In this instance, Taxpayer’s vehicle was hauling sand. Taxpayer argues that the load may have shifted during transportation. While Taxpayer has not established that the axle tandem 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. January 17, 2025 Replaces Finding Document at: New