*1 a relates'to-the alleged fault comparative may allocate as fact-finder underlying-acci- of the cause proximatе have it finds to fault that only such fault being are damages harm which the claimed dent cause of a proximate been for sought. than one of more And if the fault injuries. proximate a have been is found to actor the affirma- question answer this the fact- injuries, of the claimed causе tive. comparative
finder, in its allocation degree of fault, may the relative consider SULLIVAN, C.J., SHEPARD, to each of attributable causation proximate DAVID, JJ„ RUCKER, concur. jury while a actors. responsible receive evi- may in a crashworthiness alleged to conduct plaintiffs
dence inju- claimed to cause the contributed
have
ries, such conduct the issue injuries cause of proximate
constitutes is a matter damages sought are
for which evaluation determine jury for the OF STATE DEPARTMENT INDIANA fault. comparative below, REVENUE, Petitioner quеs certified presented, As ap the fact-finder shall asks whether INDIANA, RESORT BELTERRA suffering physi fault to the portion LLC, Respondent below. alleged fault of harm whеn the cal No. 49S10-1010-TA-519. “underlying “relates to” injured person above, the fact- explained As accident.” of Indiana. Supreme Court injured fault to the apportion shall finder concludes only if the fact-finder 9, 2011. person is a injured fault of the that the (not merely “relates
proximate cause of
to”) damages arе injuries which (not “underlying acci merely the
dent”). Otherwise, fault of the any alleged purposes for the
injured person is not fault Liability Comparative
of the Product apportioned. not be
Fault Acts and shall we revise qualifications, these
With as follows: the certified
restate
Whether, al- in a crashworthiness case injuries under
leging enhanced Act, Liability the find- Products fault tо the apportion
er of fact shall harm when
person suffering physical (2010 Edition), pre- (2) damage][death] Jury Instructions [injuiy][property Civil natural, probable, auspices and foreseeable of the Indiana pared under 'responsi- of the conduct. This is called sult Judges Association. ” 301, Indiana Model ble causе.’ Instruction *2 General, IN, ney Indianapolis, Attorneys for Petitioner. Paul, Laramore,
Stephen H. Jon B. Strickland, Auberry, Brent A. Fenton D. LLP, IN, Indianapolis, Baker & Dаniels ' Respondent. Attorneys for Slaughter, Taft Geoffrey Stettinius LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney Hollister for Amicus Curiae Indiana Chamber Commerce. Richards, Pаul,
Mark J. Brian J. Ice LLP, IN, Indianapolis, Attorneys Miller for Amicus Curiae Council on State Taxa- tion.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING RUCKER, Justice. (“Belter- Indiana,
Belterra Resort LLC ra”) seeks of this Court’s which we determined that contri- not automatically exempt butions are Indiana use Ind., LLC, Revenue v. Resort N.E.2d 174 The essential facts are these. (“Department”) imposed upon
Belterra a assessment $1,869,783.00plus penalty amount of acquisition interest due of a parent company, riverboat from its Pinna- Entertainment, Inc. On cle Id. at 176. appeal granted in favor of judgment holding that under the circumstances Belterra was not subject to tax. On review we use reversed decision and entered Court’s sum- mary in favor judgment doing In so we “step ment. held the doctrine appliеd transaction” to Pinnacle Entertainment’s contribution of the riverboat; thus the contribution was a tail transaction Indiana use tax. Zoeller, Gregory Attorney F. General of Id. at 180. Indiana, Snethen, John D. R. Ni- Matthew cholson, Schultz, Timothy A. Jennifer E. petition (a) Swain, Gauger, Deputy misapplied Andrew W. Attor- this Court Court, Belterra to the Tax (b) appeal In its doctrine,1 if the even transaction” various doctrine applied the properly including that it was grounds pre- nonetheless inferences factual flicting *3 its motion support To penalty. to the clude in- documents designated severаl Belterra (c) the Tax favor, because and ment’s at- affidavits, pleadings and the cluding favor judgment in entered Court exhibits, the joint stipulations of tached Belterra, the not address it did Revenue Rul- excerpts from and parties, to a tax subject Belterra is of sales regarding appliсation the ings rehearing to address penalty. capital contributions. use tax to argument. this latter 1, The De- at 22-26. Supplemental App. 8.1—10—2.1(a)(3) section Indiana Code 6— in re- no evidence designated partment taxpayer that if a part in relevant provides it filed a Motion Insteаd sponse. by depart- the “incurs, examination upon Pleadings, which Judgment on the negligence to ment, deficiency that is due for sum- as a cross mоtion treated subject penalty.” to a is ... the at App. Petitioner’s mary judgment. See However, subject pen- to the “[i]f 69-70. section can show undеr this alty imposed deficiency pay ... the the failure to that posi that its Belterra Here to was due by department the determined was consis capital contributions willful and not due to reasonable cause law, see Grand prior with tent shall waive the department neglect, Resort, LP v. Indiana Victoria Casino 6-8.1-10-2.1(d). The De- § I.C. penalty.” Revenue, 789 N.E.2d Department “negligence” as rule defines partment’s (Ind. Ct.2003), that Tax care, use suсh reasonable “the failure to ruled that previously had Department caution, expected diligence as would be to contributions wеre capital taxpayer.” 45 ordinary an reasonable Belterra, it has according to tax. 11—2(b).Negligence Ind. Admin. Code failing pay 15— in to thаt demonstrated by a case be determined on rather, “shall fail negligent; it was not and circum- according to the facts basis upon tax was bаsed ing pay to the use Id. To estab- taxpayer.” event, of each stances any care. exercise of reasonable pаying for not insists, reasonable cause lish that even if it is that tax, “must demonstrate taxpayer should be penalty, to ordinary pay business care and failure to was it exercised waived because its the tax. 45 cause and not due failing to remit based on reasonable prudence” 11—2(с). counters neglect. cause is a “Reasonable willful I.A.C. 15— untimely in argument will be that Belterra’s question and thus fact sensitive any evi never submitted facts thаt “Belterra according particular to the dealt with its administrative dence that it exhausted each case.” Id. circumstances of capital are excluded contributions statute support of this 1. In tends, things, deci- N.E.2d at 178 among "this Court's from use by law jurisdic- in Indiana tax examples). sion crеates confusion In this (providing 1 n. to a contribu- applying the use tax Legislature has not excluded tion the 7; Reh’g at accord Belterra’s Pet. for tion.” the reach of Indiana use contributions Chamber of Com- Curiae of Ind. Br. Amicus may certainly Legislature tax. Of course original in our merce at 2. As we noted do if it so desires. so by expressly provide states opinion several respect remedies with penalty.”
Resp. Opp’n at In the Reh’g 4. Matter of Heather McClure O’FARRELL, Respondent.
We are of the that this ripe issue is not for review. The Indiana No. 29S00-0902-DI-76. develop established to Supreme Court of Indiana. apply specialized expertise in the prompt, fair, and uniform resolution of state tax 2011. cases. Statе Bd. Tax Comm’rs India Club, Inc., napolis Racquet 743 N.E.2d *4 (Ind.2001). 247, 249 This Court extends
cautious deference to within decisions
special expertise of the Tax Court. Ind.
Dep’t v. Safayan, (Ind.1995). N.E.2d We extend presumption
the same validity to Tax rulings judgments and
apply same standard review. State Revenue v. Bethlеhem Steel Corp., 639 N.E.2d is,
That when in
volves a question of law within the particu Court, purview
lar of the Tax cautious appropriate.
deference is Applying Id. here,
this deference we remand this mat
ter to the Tax Court to determine the
timeliness of and if
timely whether Belterra
penalty and if so whether
should be waived. modify our
original opinion as set forth herein. In all respects the original opinion is af-
firmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN and
DAVID, JJ., concur.
DICKSON, J., result, concurs in
believing should also be
granted to revisit the Court’s decision on transaction” issue.