Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
2012 Ind. Tax LEXIS 8
| Ind. T.C. | 2012Background
- Fresenius USA Marketing, Inc. appealed a final Department of State Revenue refund denial for sales/use tax paid on durable medical equipment 2004–2007.
- Equipment included dialysis machines, dialyzers, needles, bloodlines, dressings, IV sets, and syringes used to treat End Stage Renal Disease.
- Fresenius collected and remitted the tax to the Department, then claimed exemption under the durable medical equipment exemption and sought refunds.
- The Department denied the claim on June 7, 2010, prompting Fresenius to initiate an original tax appeal August 21, 2010.
- The Department moved to dismiss; the Tax Court denied the motion, stating the court has subject matter jurisdiction and Fresenius has standing.
- The court addressed subject matter jurisdiction, standing, and class-action considerations in its ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject matter jurisdiction proper for Fresenius' appeal? | Fresenius argues the Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over original tax appeals and final determination exists. | Department contends lack of properly executed power of attorney prevents exhaustion of remedies and deprives jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction properly lies; 12(B)(1) motion denied. |
| Does Fresenius have standing to seek a refund? | Fresenius argues standing arises under tax-refund framework and does not depend on passing cash back to customers first. | Department asserts standing requires refund to customers per statute, or lack of economic interest defeats standing. | Fresenius has standing; 12(B)(6) motion denied. |
| Should the case be dismissed for lack of class certification? | Fresenius has a statutory right to appeal; no need to pursue or certify as a class action. | Case must be dismissed for failure to certify as a class action. | No dismissal; not treated as class action; 12(B)(6) denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- State Bd. of Tax Comm'rs v. Ispat Inland, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 477 (Ind.2003) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required for jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Att'y Gen. v. Lake Superior Court, 820 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind.2005) (finality of administrative action necessary for jurisdiction)
- Sproles v. State, 672 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind.1996) (exclusive jurisdiction over certain tax appeals)
- F.A. Wilhelm Constr. Co. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 586 N.E.2d 953 (Ind. Tax Ct.1992) (court cannot rewrite plain statutory terms)
- McPeek v. McCardle, 888 N.E.2d 171 (Ind.2008) (standing and procedural posture considerations)