Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
995 N.E.2d 733
| Ind. T.C. | 2013Background
- Miller Pipeline Corporation appealed the Indiana Department of State Revenue’s final determination denying its refund claim for gross retail (sales) and use tax paid 2005–2007.
- Department audit completed September 10, 2009; proposed assessments for 2006–2007 issued September 21, 2009; Miller Pipeline paid in full October 23, 2009.
- Miller Pipeline filed refund claim March 24, 2010; Department denied refund.
- Original tax appeal filed December 21, 2010; Motion for partial summary judgment filed April 25, 2013.
- Court held a hearing on the Motion July 9, 2013.
- Court denied Miller Pipeline’s Motion for partial summary judgment, citing improper designated and inadmissible evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Casual sale use tax refund eligibility | Miller Pipeline: casual sale rule (45 IAC 2.2-1-1(d)); purchase qualifies for refund since seller wasn’t in the business of selling rolling stock. | Department: transaction not a casual sale; use tax properly assessed/refunded only if statutory criteria are met; evidence insufficient. | Denies the issue; evidence designated improperly for summary judgment. |
| Lump-sum contract use tax refund eligibility | Miller Pipeline: lump-sum contract rationale; contractor paid tax on materials; refund due for use tax remitted | Department: no admissible evidence showing lump-sum contract and tax on materials; claim unsupported. | Denies the issue; Exhibit 26 inadmissible and not sworn; overall motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kronmiller v. Wangberg, 665 N.E.2d 624 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (evidentiary thresholds for summary judgment; admissibility of designated evidence)
- In re Belanger’s Estate, 433 N.E.2d 39 (Ind.Ct.App.1982) (threshold evidentiary considerations before summary judgment)
- Filip v. Block, 879 N.E.2d 1076 (Ind.2008) (proper designation of evidence under T.R. 56(C))
- O’Connor v. Stewart, 668 N.E.2d 720 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (necessity of specifying relevant portions of documents for summary judgment)
- Kissell v. Vanes, 629 N.E.2d 878 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (requirement to identify material portions and explain materiality)
- Babinchak v. Town of Chesterton, 598 N.E.2d 1099 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (burden on moving party to establish prima facie case on summary judgment)