Horrall v. Indiana Dep't., State Revenue

4 Citing cases

  1. Clifft v. Indiana Department of Revenue

    748 N.E.2d 449 (Ind. T.C. 2001)   Cited 10 times
    Stating that the burden rests with the taxpayer to prove an assessment is wrong

    I.C. § 6-8.1-5-1(h); see also Hall v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 720 N.E.2d 1287, 1289 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 1999). Although statutes that impose tax are to be strictly construed against the State, in Indiana, "[t]he burden of proving that the proposed assessment is wrong rests with the person against whom the proposed assessment is made." I.C. § 6-8.1-5-1(b); see also Horrall v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 687 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 1997), review denied; Longmire v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 638 N.E.2d 894, 898 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1994). Discussion

  2. Hunt Corp. v. Department of State Revenue

    709 N.E.2d 766 (Ind. T.C. 1999)   Cited 14 times
    Stating that “[i]n order to determine what income is attributable to Indiana, it must be first determined whether the income sought to be attributed is business or non-business income”

    The Department audited these returns and concluded that Hunt owed Indiana corporate income taxes and interest in the amount of $273,311.08. Thereafter, the Department issued notices of proposed assessments to Hunt. See id. § 6-8.1-5-1(a) (1998);Horrall v. Department of State Revenue, 687 N.E.2d 1219, 1221 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997), review denied. Hunt filed a written protest.

  3. City Securities v. Dept. of State Revenue

    704 N.E.2d 1122 (Ind. T.C. 1998)   Cited 12 times
    Holding that the Court will not interpret the law in such a way as to render a jurisdictional statute a nullity

    Therefore, a taxpayer can file a written protest, subsequently pay the tax and file a claim for refund, and not lose the right to appeal from the claim for refund. Indeed, our Supreme Court has made clear that a taxpayer may pursue relief under both procedures at once. See State v. Sproles, 672 N.E.2d 1353, 1357 (Ind. 1996); see also Horrall v. Department of State Revenue, 687 N.E.2d 1219, 1220 n. 2 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997), review denied. For this Court to hold otherwise would contradict the language in Sproles.

  4. Indianapolis Fruit Co. v. Department of State Revenue

    691 N.E.2d 1379 (Ind. T.C. 1998)   Cited 17 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding production where taxpayer actively transformed unmarketable bananas into marketable ones

    This Court reviews the Department's final determinations de novo and is bound by neither the evidence nor the issues raised at the administrative level. See Ind. Code Ann. § 6-8.1-9-1(d) (West Supp. 1997); Horrall v. Department of State Revenue, 687 N.E.2d 1219, 1220 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1997). Discussion and Analysis