in-20260729-IR-045260241NRA: FINAL ORDER DENYING REFUND: 04-20251732

DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE FINAL ORDER DENYING REFUND: 04-20251732 Sales Tax For the Tax Year 2024 HOLDING Missouri Resident was not entitled to a refund of sales tax on a boat that he purchased from an Indiana Merchant because Missouri Resident came to Indiana and took possession of that boat at Merchant's location in Indiana. The transaction was an Indiana sale subject to Indiana sales tax. ISSUE

I. Sales Tax - Refund.

Authority: IC 6-2.5-1-2; IC 6-2.5-2-1; IC 6-2.5-2-3; IC 6-2.5-4-1; IC 6-2.5-13-1; Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579 (Ind. 2014); Express Scripts Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 170 N.E.3d 273 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2021); Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012); Scopelite v. Indiana Dept. of Local Gov't Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, Sales Tax Division v. RCA Corp., 310 N.E.2d 96 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974); 45 IAC 2.2-2-1; Sales Tax Information Bulletin 28WC (August 2023). Taxpayer protests the partial refund denial of sales tax. STATEMENT OF FACTS Taxpayer is an individual currently residing in Missouri. In August 2024, Taxpayer purchased a boat from an Indiana merchant (“Seller”) and took possession of the boat at the Seller's business location in Indiana. The Seller collected sales tax in the amount of $533.84. The sales tax was calculated based on seven (7) percent - reflecting Indiana's tax rate. Taxpayer registered and titled the boat in Oklahoma in late August 2024. Taxpayer filed a Form GA-110L, Claim for Refund, requesting a full refund in September 2024. Upon an initial review, the Indiana Department of Revenue (“Department”) granted a partial refund and denied the remainder. Taxpayer protested and requested that the Department make the final determination without an administrative hearing. This final determination results.

I. Sales Tax - Refund.

DISCUSSION Taxpayer protested the refund denial, stating that “[t]he State of Indiana should not collect tax on items sold to out of state customers” and that he “paid tax twice on the same” item. Thus, the issue is whether Taxpayer's documents demonstrated that he is entitled to the refund. Indiana imposes an excise tax called “the state gross retail tax” (“sales tax”) on retail transactions made in Indiana. IC 6-2.5-2-1(a); 45 IAC 2.2-2-1. A retail transaction is a transaction made by a retail merchant that constitutes “selling at retail.” IC 6-2.5-1-2(a). Selling at retail occurs when a person “(1) acquires tangible personal property for the purpose of resale; and (2) transfers that property to another person for consideration.” IC 6-2.5-4-1(b). A person who acquires tangible person property in a retail transaction (a “retail purchaser”) is liable for the sales tax on the transaction. IC 6-2.5-2-1(b). A retail sale is sourced to Indiana and thus is subject to Indiana sales tax when the transaction is a “retail sale . . . of a product” and “the product is received by the purchaser at a business location of the seller [in Indiana] . . . . ” IC 6-2.5-13-1(d)(1). The purchaser in general “shall pay the tax to the retail merchant as a separate added amount to the consideration in the transaction.” IC 6-2.5-2-1(b). The “retail merchant [] shall collect the tax as agent for the state.” Id. Certain transactions, such as a qualified transaction pursuant to interstate commerce rules, may be exempt from Indiana sales tax. The Sales Tax Information Bulletin 28WC (August 2023), 20230913-IR-045230635NRA, explains, in relevant part: The exemption under the interstate commerce rules is distinctly different from the provision provided under IC 6-2.5-2-3(b), which establishes a special rate imposed on motor vehicle sales to out-of-state customers and only applies to transactions involving motor vehicles. Further, a statute which provides a tax exemption is strictly construed against the taxpayer. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, Sales Tax Division v. RCA Corp., 310 N.E.2d 96, 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974). “[W]here such an exemption is claimed, the party claiming the same must show a case, by sufficient evidence, which is clearly within the exact letter of the law.” Id. at 101 (internal citations omitted). When submitting evidence as part of his protest, the taxpayer needs to specify and explain the portions of the evidence that he 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 Dept. of State Revenue, 170 N.E.3d 273, 279 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2021). When an agency is charged with enforcing a statute, courts defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of that statute “over an equally reasonable interpretation by another party.” Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579, 583 (Ind. 2014). Poorly developed or non-cogent arguments are subject to waiver. Scopelite v. Indiana Dept. of Local Gov't Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480, 486 n.9 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012). In this case, Taxpayer purchased a boat from the Indiana Seller. Taxpayer stated that he was required to pay the tax the second time when he registered and titled that boat in Oklahoma. Taxpayer contended that he should not have to pay taxes twice on the same boat because the State of Indiana should not collect tax on boats sold to out of state customers. Taxpayer did not reference any applicable statutory exemptions. Rather, Taxpayer offered a purchase invoice, payment receipts, and a certificate of registration issued by Oklahoma to support his protest. Upon review, however, Taxpayer's reliance on his supporting documentation is misplaced. First, Taxpayer's documents demonstrated that in August 2024, he purchased a boat, not a motor vehicle. The tax rate outlined in IC 6-2.5-2-3 is not applicable in this case as a result. Second, according to the Seller's Invoice and Bill of Sale, Taxpayer was required to picked up that boat at the Seller's business location. That is, Taxpayer came to Indiana and took possession (i.e., delivery) of the boat at the Seller's Indiana location. When Taxpayer came to Indiana to pick up that boat in Indiana, the sale - namely, the retail transaction - occurred at the Seller's Indiana location pursuant to the above-mentioned Indiana tax law. In other words, the boat was sold in Indiana subject to Indiana sales tax. The Seller correctly computed and collected the sales tax at seven percent rate. To conclude, Taxpayer failed to document that in 2024, upon the sale of the boat, the boat was physically delivered by the Seller to Missouri where he resides. Rather, Taxpayer's supporting documents established that Taxpayer came to Indiana to pick up that boat in Indiana. As such, the transaction in question did not qualify “as being sold in interstate commerce.” The sale in this case occurred in Indiana - was an Indiana sale - subject to Indiana sales tax pursuant to Indiana tax law. FINDING Taxpayer's protest is respectfully denied. May 15, 2026 Replaces Finding Document: New