Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc., 2012 Ind. LEXIS 24

RAC East, a Delaware corporation, operated 106 Indiana stores in a three-entity structure (RAC East, RAC West, RAC Texas) for 2003.
RAC West owned the trademarks/IP and licensed to RAC East and RAC Texas; RAC Texas performed strategic management for all three under arm's-length transfer pricing.
RAC East filed a 2003 Indiana return with no tax due; the Department audited 2001–2003 and proposed $513,272.60 in 2003 tax due if a combined return was required.
The Department proposed a combined return based on a finding RAC East’s income should be apportioned with RAC West and RAC Texas; RAC East protested and the Tax Court granted RAC East summary judgment.
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that §6-3-2-2(p) is a rule of decision and that the Department’s prima facie showing on proposed assessment should be evaluated with the taxpayer's evidence at the summary judgment stage.
The case proceeds to re-evaluate motions for summary judgment on the merits with all properly designated evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §6-3-2-2(p) operates as a threshold requirement or a rule of decision.	RAC East contends §6-3-2-2(p) sets a threshold before summary judgment.	Department argues §6-3-2-2(p) governs when a combined return may be required and is considered at trial/summary judgment.	§6-3-2-2(p) is a rule of decision, not a threshold.
Proper handling of summary judgment when a proposed assessment exists.	Department's prima facie showing on the proposed assessment should suffice at the outset.	Tax Court must allow evidence beyond the proposed assessment to resolve §6-3-2-2(p) issues.	Department's proposed assessment provides a prima facie showing; taxpayer must show genuine issues under §6-3-2-2(p) later; remand for merits with designated evidence.
Role of designated evidence beyond the proposed assessment in summary judgment.	Additional designated facts are not required at this stage.	Court wrongly required extra designated evidence before ruling on summary judgment.	Tax Court erred in requiring additional evidence at the summary judgment stage; remand for merits with all designated evidence.

Rent-A-Center East, Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue, 952 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Tax Ct.2011) (summary judgment context in tax sourcing and combined return dispute)
Kohl's Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue, 822 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. Tax Ct.2005) (interpretation of Section 6-3-2-2-2 and separate filing default)
Ind. Dep't of State Revenue v. Belterra Resort Ind., LLC, 935 N.E.2d 174 (Ind.2010) (tax sourcing and statutory interpretation framework)