ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER : ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT :

ROBERT A. ROMACK GREGORY F. ZOELLER Franklin , IN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA EVAN W. BARTEL DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Indianapolis, IN

____________________________________________________________________ _ 

# IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT

_____________________________________________________________________ AZTEC PARTNERS, LLC, ) ) Petitioner, ) )
v. ) Cause No. 49T10

- 1210

- SC

- 00067 ) INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ) STATE REVENUE, ) ) Respondent. )

______________________________________________________________________

ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S PETITION FOR REHEARING

FOR PUBLICATION July 30 , 2015
WENTWORTH, J. On June 23, 2015, this Court issued an opinion in the above

- captioned case holding that the electricity that Aztec Partners, LLC used to power certain electrical equipment was exempt from Indiana sales tax because it qualified for the consumption exemption under Indiana Code § 6

- 2.5

- 5

- 5.1. See Aztec Partners, LLC v. Indiana Dep’t

of State Revenue , No. 49T10

- 1210

- SC

- 00067, 2015 WL 3875259, at *2

- 6 (Ind. Tax Ct. June 23, 2015). The India na Department of State Revenue has f iled a Petition for Rehearing pursuant to Rule 63(B) of Indiana ’s Rules of Appellate Procedure. The2

Depa rtment’s Petition presents two issues that the Court restates as: 1) w hether Aztec deprived the Court of subject matter jurisdiction by filing ambiguous refund claims; and, if not, 2) w hether the Court erred in finding that Aztec’s evidentiary presentatio n
satisfied the essential and integral requirement of the consumption exemption. The
Court, having reviewed the Department’s Petition and Aztec’s response thereto , grant s the Department’s Petition for the limited purpose of clarifying its decision regardi ng subject matter jurisdiction.
In its Petition, the Department claims that while it argued that Aztec failed to file a proper refund claim in both its written brief and at trial, the Court did not address the

issue at all in Aztec Partners . (Resp’ t Pet. Reh’ g at 6.) Furthermore , the Department

claim s that the Court erred in determining that it had subject subject matter jurisdiction

over Aztec’s refund claims stating that :

Aztec attempted to file several refund claims[, but] did no t . . . explain the bas is for its refund claims. It claimed an “exclusion” from tax, but did not specify which exclusion. Further, it provided no citations or analysis to ex plain its claim. To the extent that it did, the legal analysis in the refund claim was ambiguous. Ther e was nothing in the claim to assist the administrative body in rendering a final determination. Accordingly, Aztec never filed a proper refund claim and failed to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. (Resp’t Pet. Reh’ g at 6 (citations omitted) .)

In filin g its refund claims, Indiana Code § 6

- 8.1

- 9

- 1 required Aztec to “ set forth

the amount of the refund to which [it] is entitled and the reasons that [it] is entitled to the

refund.” See I ND

. C ODE § 6

- 8.1

- 9

- 1(a) (2011 ) (amended 2012)

. Aztec filed all twelve of its refund claims on the Department’s prescribed form, the GA

- 110L. ( See Resp’t Des’g
Evid., Exs. B

- M.) Aztec described the basis for its refund claims in each GA

- 110L in

one of two ways, varying only the percentage of exclusion to which it believed it was3

entitled: Taxpayer uses electricity and natural gas to produce various food

items for sale. Based on prior determinations by the Department, Taxpayer qualifies for 36% exclusion for electricity. PDF copies of vendor invoices will be provided upon request. Taxpayer uses electricity and natural gas to produce various food items for sale. Based on the attached engineering s urvey, Taxpayer qualifies for 45 % exclusion for electricity. PDF copies of vendor invoices will be provided upon request. ( See Resp’t Des’g Evid., Exs. B

- M.) The Department , in turn, reviewed Aztec’s refund claims and ultimately approved them in part and denied them in part. ( See Resp’t Des’g
Evid., Exs. B

- M.) In so doing, the Department explained that it had denied Aztec’ s

re fund claims in part either because the Department’ s records indicated that it previously granted Aztec an exemption for a lower percentage or because non

- exempt equipment had been removed from the engineering/utility study that Aztec sent with its

refund c laims. ( See Resp’t Des’g Evid., Exs. B

- M.) Given that the Department was able to determine 1) the basis of Aztec’s refund
claims, 2) the amount of refund to which it believed Aztec was entitled , and 3) the relationship to refund claims previously grante d to Aztec, the Court declines to find that

Aztec’s refund claims were ambiguous. Moreover, to the extent the Department claims

that Aztec’s refund claim s were based on an exclusion alone ( i.e. , the predominate use

exclusion ) , the Department’s position co mpletely disr egards the relationship that this exclusion has to the consumption exemption: a taxpayer’s qualification for the former depends on its qualification for the latter

. See generally 45 I ND

. A DMIN

. C ODE 2.2

- 4

- 13(b) (2010) (see http://www.in.gov/ legislative/iac/ ) ( providing that for purposes of the predominate use exclusion, “[e]lectrical energy . . . will only be considered directly used4

in direct production [or] manufacturing . . . if the utilities would be exempt under IC 6

-
2.5

- 5

- 5.1”). Thus, Aztec’s refund claim s for the exclusion necessarily involved a claim for the consumption exemption. ( See Trial Tr. at 32

- 33 (where the Department acknowledges that the exclusion and exemption are integrally tied together).) Finally,

and as the Court has already explained in Aztec Partners :

whether Aztec sought a refund based on the consumption exemption at the administrative level does not implicate the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction . Indeed, subject matter jurisdiction does not depend upon the suff iciency or correctness of the averments in a complaint, the stating of a good cause of action, the validity of a party’s demand, or a party’s right to relief.

Aztec Partners , 2015 WL 3875259 , at *2 (internal brackets and citations omitted) (emphasis added )

. The Court, therefore, stands by its decision in Aztec Partners in its entirety

. SO ORDERED this 30 th day of July 2015.

__________________________ Martha Blood Wentworth Judge, Indiana Tax Court

D istribution : Robe rt A. Romack, Evan W Bartel