ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS

Aaron E. Haith

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

Kyle Hunter

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Michael W. Troyan and MT 

Management, LLC,

Appellants-Plaintiffs,

v.

The Commissioner of the 

Indiana Department of Revenue, 

et al.,

Appellees-Defendants.

September 30, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1411-PL-794

Appeal from the Marion Superior 

Court.

The Honorable H. Patrick Murphy, 

Magistrate.

Cause No. 49D14-1407-PL-023446

Shepard, Senior Judge

[1] Appellant Michael W. Troyan has contended that the Department of Revenue 

was wrong to assess withholding tax against his limited liability company. A 

trial court denied his request for injunctive relief against the Department. On 

appeal, he contends this denial was an abuse of discretion. We remand with 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1411-PL-794 | September 30, 2015 Page 1 of 8
instructions to dismiss, inasmuch as exclusive jurisdiction rests with the Tax 

Court.

Issue

[2] Troyan contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request 

for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunctive relief from unpaid 

tax assessments reduced to judgment. The dispositive issue on appeal,

however, is whether the Marion Superior Court had jurisdiction over this 

matter in the first place.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] The Indiana Department of Revenue stores records on and interacts with 

companies based on their federal tax identification number (“FEIN”) and the 

corresponding state tax identification number (“TID”). An entity doing 

business in Indiana registers to pay taxes by submitting a Business Tax 

Application on a form known as a BT-1, which identifies the type of tax for 

which it is being registered. The company provides all the information on the 

form except for the TID, which the Department issues after it receives the 

application. Both the state and federal numbers are uniquely issued to only one 

business entity. 

[4] On August 6, 2010, MT Management, LLC was organized as an Indiana

limited liability company. The articles of organization list Mike Troyan as the 

registered agent and the address as 55 S. State Street, Suite 388, Indianapolis, 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1411-PL-794 | September 30, 2015 Page 2 of 8
Indiana 46201. MT Management’s FEIN is 273215631 and DOR gave it a 

TID of 0140920510. 

[5] On May 5, 2011, a BT-1 was filed electronically with the DOR under MT’s 

FEIN. It listed the business name as “Mount Management” and appears to 

have been filed by Troyan. The form listed a business address of 55 South State 

Avenue, (rather than “Street”), featured MT’s FEIN, Troyan’s contact 

information and social security number, and declared that the company had 

begun withholding taxes from an Indiana resident or employee.

[6] MT Management was thus obliged to pay withholding taxes and report the 

amount withheld on a form known as a WH-1. If a business does not do that 

on schedule, DOR is authorized to assess a tax based on the best information 

available, such as the national average withholding tax reported by similar 

employers.

[7] Once a business receives an assessment, it may: (1) pay the amount assessed; or 

(2) file a WH-1 for the period; or (3) file a written protest with DOR requesting 

a hearing. Even if a business paid no wages, it must file a return so indicating, 

known as a “Zero Return,” and it will not be assessed. The duty to report 

withholding continues.

[8] During the winter of 2011-12 and onward, DOR issued proposed bestinformation withholding tax assessments for the third quarter of 2011, and then 

the fourth quarter of 2011 for the company identified by MT Management’s 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1411-PL-794 | September 30, 2015 Page 3 of 8
federal and state ID numbers. In February 2012, a warrant for collection of tax 

was issued for MT Management. 

[9] On October 25, 2012, Troyan went to DOR and filed two Zero Returns for the 

third and fourth quarter of 2011 on behalf of MT Management. Both Zero 

Returns bore the name “Mount Management” and were signed by Troyan. 

The previous assessments were thus cancelled, and collection efforts ceased.

[10] Of course, MT Management’s duty to report withholding taxes continued. It 

did not, so DOR eventually issued proposed withholding tax assessments 

covering 2012 and 2013. On August 8, 2014, DOR wrote Troyan’s counsel 

notifying him that MT had not filed the necessary returns and saying that if the 

business had not withheld taxes for the past years, he could file Zero Returns as 

before, and if MT Management did not anticipate withholding taxes in the 

future, the company could file a notice that it was closing or no longer required 

to be registered for such taxes.

[11] In due course, the unpaid assessments converted to a judgment and a collection 

agency placed a levy on MT Management’s funds in Peoples Bank on June 6, 

2014. On July 14, 2014, MT Management and Troyan filed a complaint for

injunctive relief and damages, requesting the release of the levy. 

[12] The levy on MT Management’s funds was released on July 21, 2014. 

Following a hearing, the trial court denied the request for a temporary 

restraining order and injunction. The court concluded that the request for 

injunctive relief was moot because the levy had been released and the funds 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1411-PL-794 | September 30, 2015 Page 4 of 8
were available to the plaintiffs, but went on to evaluate MT’s request in accord 

with the standards applicable to Indiana Trial Rule 65 and concluded that the 

requests for injunctive relief failed on the merits. MT Management and Troyan 

now appeal from this order.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Troyan and MT Management allege an abuse of discretion on the part of the 

trial court by denying the request for injunctive relief. “The grant or denial of a 

request for a preliminary injunction rests within the sound discretion of the trial 

court, and our review is limited to whether there was a clear abuse of that 

discretion.” City of Gary, Ind. v. Majestic Star Casino, LLC, 905 N.E.2d 1076, 

1082 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied. On appellate review, we must 

determine if the trial court’s findings support its judgment and will reverse only 

when the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous. Id. 

[14] Troyan and MT Management summarize their argument in terms of the trial 

court’s failure to recognize that Troyan had established all of the requisite 

elements to obtain injunctive relief. However, the relief sought as expressed in 

the appellants’ brief is resolution of the assessment and collection of a tax 

Troyan and MT Management claim is not owed. 

[15] The Department has responded to the merits of this position, but it has also 

argued here, as it did in the trial court, that under either scenario, it is the 

Indiana Tax Court and not the Marion Superior Court or this Court that has 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1411-PL-794 | September 30, 2015 Page 5 of 8
jurisdiction over such claims. The Department is correct, for reasons we set 

forth below.

[16] The Indiana Code says rather directly: “The tax court has exclusive jurisdiction 

over any case that arises under the tax laws of Indiana and that is an initial 

appeal of a final determination made by: (1) the department of state revenue 

with respect to a listed tax . . .; or (2) the Indiana board of tax review.” Indiana 

Code § 33-26-3-1 (2004). In the act creating the Tax Court, the General 

Assembly reinforced this principle by repealing certain existing laws that 

directed appeals to general jurisdiction trial courts. See P.L. 291-1985 § 2, 1985 

Ind. Acts 2282. 

[17] Our Supreme Court recognized the breadth of this exclusive jurisdiction in State 

v. Sproles, 672 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind. 1996), and recently reiterated its earlier view:

To give effect to the legislative purpose for the Tax Court, we 

held that a case “arises under” Indiana tax law if (1) “an Indiana 

tax statute creates the right of action,” or (2) “the case principally 

involves collection of a tax or defenses to that collection.”

. . . .

We have continued to interpret the Tax Court’s “arises under” 

jurisdiction broadly within the framework established by Sproles. 

For example, any case challenging the collection of a tax or 

assessment arises under the tax laws, whether the challenge is 

premised on constitutional, statutory, or other grounds. See, e.g., 

[State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v.]Lake Superior Court, 820 N.E.2d at 1247; 

State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. Ispat Inland, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 477, 481 

(Ind. 2003); State v. Costa, 732 N.E.2d 1224, 1224-25 (Ind. 2000); 

State Bd. of Tax Comm’rs v. Montgomery, 730 N.E.2d 680, 682-84 

(Ind. 2000). And the challenge need not be to the collection 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1411-PL-794 | September 30, 2015 Page 6 of 8
directly—challenges to earlier steps in the taxation or assessment 

process arise under the tax laws. See, e.g., Lake Superior Court, 820 

N.E.2d at 1243-45 (challenging reassessment of property 

valuations on which property-tax calculation would be based); 

Ispat Inland, 784 N.E.2d at 479-80 (challenging audit conducted 

after taxes were paid because the audit might have resulted in a 

deficiency). 

State ex rel. Zoeller v. Aisin USA Manufacturing, Inc., 946 N.E.2d 1148, 1152-53 

(Ind. 2011). 

[18] Here, Troyan and MT Management allege that the tax assessment is improper 

because the DOR is attempting to collect from them a tax obligation of another 

entity, “Mount Management.” This claim clearly involves the challenge to a 

collection of a tax or assessment, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of 

the Tax Court. “Resort to a court of general jurisdiction to challenge a tax is 

precluded by this grant of exclusive jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Ind. Dep’t of 

Revenue v. Deaton, 755 N.E.2d 568, 571 (Ind. 2001). 

[19] To be sure, when an unpaid tax assessment is reduced to judgment, a circuit or 

superior court acquires jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the 

judgment, id., but Troyan and MT Management asked the Marion Superior 

Court for relief in excess of that limited power. 

Conclusion

[20] The trial court may well have been right as a matter of injunction law, but we 

remand this matter for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds. 

[21] Remanded with instructions. 

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1411-PL-794 | September 30, 2015 Page 7 of 8
[22] Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1411-PL-794 | September 30, 2015 Page 8 of 8