in-20260729-IR-045260242NRA: LETTER OF FINDINGS: 41-20241330

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE LETTER OF FINDINGS: 41-20241330 International Registration Plan For the Distance Reporting Period July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021 HOLDING Indiana trucking business was not able to meet its burden of proving the proposed assessment was wrong; therefore, the assessment remains as issued. ISSUE

I. International Registration Plan - 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 International Registration Plan (“IRP”) fees. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is an Indiana-based motor carrier business that provides trucking services. The Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) audited Taxpayer related to the IRP, an agreement providing for registration reciprocity among member jurisdictions, including Indiana. However, the Department could not complete a standard audit due to a lack of adequate records from Taxpayer. In accordance with IRP guidelines, the Department issued a proposed assessment. Taxpayer protested the proposed assessment. The Department held an administrative hearing with Taxpayer. This Letter of Findings is therefore based on Taxpayer's explanation and analysis presented at the hearing, materials sent in by Taxpayer with its protest submission, and on the Department's records. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. International Registration Plan - Assessment.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer protests the imposition of additional IRP fees for the distance reporting period of July 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. The Department based its determination that additional IRP fees were due on the fact that Taxpayer did not have sufficient or adequate documentation available for review. Taxpayer utilized a computer routing system that assisted it with producing manually sourced distance records. Taxpayer provided the Department with drivers' trip sheets during the audit. These sheets included information such as trip origin and destination, beginning and ending trip dates, and unit numbers or vehicle identification. However, Taxpayer's manually sourced records were limited in that Taxpayer would fit as many trips as would fit on the created document but failed to include trip specific information. Taxpayer stated that it had a control in place capture and check trip information for appropriate content and to verify accuracy of trip distance, but the Department found no evidence of any such process in the records provided. Additionally, Taxpayer had no control or process implemented to verify the trip odometer readings for its vehicles. Therefore, the Department imposed an additional assessment on Taxpayer for having inadequate distance records. As a threshold issue, it is Taxpayer's burden 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. The Department first refers to IC 6-6-4.1-14, which states: IC 9-28-4-6 states: IC 6-8.1-5-4 states: IRP, Article X-1065 states: IRP, Article X-1000 states: IRP, Article X-1005 states: IRP, Article X-1010 states: IRP, Article X-1015 states: Taxpayer protested the proposed assessment and submitted a protest letter citing its reason for the protest. During the protest process, Taxpayer did not respond to the Department's requests for additional documentation, information, or records needed to meet the IRP reporting requirements. Thus, Taxpayer's records remain inadequate. 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. IRP, Article X-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, Article X-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). Taxpayer has not met the burden of proving the proposed assessment wrong, as required by IC 6-8.1-5-1(c). FINDING Taxpayer's protest is respectfully denied. May 29, 2026 Replaces Finding Document: New