in-20250326-IR-045250130NRA: DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE FINAL ORDER DENYING REFUND: 03-20231388; 03-20231389; 03-20231390; 03-20231391; 03-20231392; 03-20231393 Withholding Tax For the Period January 2018 – June 2018 HOLDING Business was not entitled to a refund because it failed to demonstrate that it timely filed its refund claims. ISSUE

I. Tax Administration – Statute of Limitations.

Authority: IC 6-3-4-8; IC 6-8.1-9-1; Scopelite v. Indiana Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012); Medco Health Solutions, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 9 N.E.3d 263 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2014); Express Scripts Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 170 N.E.3d 273 (Ind. Tax Court 2021); 45 IAC 3.1-1-97. Taxpayer protests the denial of requested Indiana withholding tax refunds for the 2018 tax year. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is a company that states that it overpaid withholding taxes for six time periods (namely, January through June of 2018). The Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) had previously denied the Taxpayer’s refund claims as being outside of the statutory timeframe to file such refund claims. As a result of the refund denials, Taxpayer filed a protest with the Department. On its Protest Submission Form, Taxpayer checked the box that it was requesting a “Final determination without a hearing,” thus waiving its right to an administrative hearing. This Final Order Denying refund results. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Tax Administration – Statute of Limitations.

DISCUSSION The Department denied Taxpayer’s refund claims on the grounds that the claim was not timely. For example, one of the Department’s denial letters—issued on October 19, 2022—explained in relevant part: A taxpayer is required to provide documentation explaining and supporting his or her challenge that the Department’s position is wrong. The Indiana Tax Court has noted that poorly developed and non-cogent arguments are subject to waiver. Scopelite v. Indiana Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480, 486 n.9 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012). A taxpayer, when submitting evidence as part of a protest, needs to specify and explain the portions of the evidence that a taxpayer believes to be relevant. As the Indiana Tax Court has previously noted (in the context of a summary judgment motion): “the Court will not consider” exhibits “on the off chance that it might find, on its own and undirected, some fact that supports” a claim, and “the Court is not required to search for specific facts on which” a party relies. Express Scripts Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 170 N.E.3d 273, 279 (Ind. Tax Court 2021). IC 6-8.1-9-1(a) affords a taxpayer a statutory right to file a claim for refund. This statute provides, in part: IC 6-8.1-9-1(a) also states: 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. Turning to Taxpayer’s argument, in its protest letter, Taxpayer states that “the relevant details pertaining to the overpayment” are as follows: Taxpayer further states on January 14, 2019, that “the State seized” money “from [Taxpayer’s] account which was an estimate from the State of delinquent amounts owed.” Taxpayer states that the “DOR system also shows that on January 29, 2019, [Taxpayer] remitted additional payments for the period January 2018 – June 2018 for the amounts set forth in the ‘Actual’ column” provided in a table in the written protest. Taxpayer asserts that this was a “double payment for that six month period.” Taxpayer avers that “[l]ater in 2019 (exact date unknown, but we believe it was April or May 2019), [Taxpayer] filed an amendment with the DOR to correct the wages for [Taxpayer’s] sole Indiana employee.” Lastly, Taxpayer concludes: Based on Taxpayer’s own statements, it was delinquent in its withholding tax payments to the State of Indiana. Additionally, despite receiving notices of proposed assessments, Taxpayer did not take timely action to correct the matter. According to Taxpayer, shortly after the Department levied its bank account for the proposed assessment amounts, Taxpayer then made payments of the amounts it believed due. Taxpayer believes in 2019 it “filed an amendment” but does not know the date. And finally, because of Taxpayer’s staffing issues, it did not timely file its request for refund with the Department. The threshold question is whether Taxpayer timely filed its refund claims as required pursuant to the applicable law. Taxpayer’s refund requests in October of 2022 were over three years from 2018, thus Taxpayer’s refund requests were not timely pursuant to IC 6-8.1-9-1(a) (“the person must file the claim with the department within three (3) years…”). Therefore, Taxpayer’s protest is denied. Additionally, the Department notes that 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), that “[t]he Department has no legal method of generating a claim for refund on its own; rather, a claim for refund can only be initiated by a taxpayer pursuant to the procedure set forth in Indiana Code § 6-8.1-9-1.” Id. at 266. FINDING Taxpayer’s protest is denied. January 16, 2025 Replaces Finding Document at: New