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
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.
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.
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