Aaisin Usa Mfg Case Study

1352 Words6 Pages
State v. Aisin USA Mfg., Inc. Facts: With an extension, Aisin USA Mfg., Inc., [Defendant] filed its corporate tax return in October 2002, for the tax year ending December 31, 2001. On April 3, 2006, the Department of Revenue [DOR] sent a “Proposed Assessment,” stating Defendant was overpaid 600 thousand dollars, which needed to be paid by June 2, 2006. Defendant protested the “Proposed Assessment” and requested a hearing in June of 2006. The DOR later sent Defendant a letter cancelling the “Proposed Assessment.” The State filed suit in the Jackson Superior Court on April 29, 2009. Issue: Does the Jackson Superior Court have the authority to hear the subject matter of State v. Aisin USA Mfg., Inc.? Conclusion: The Jackson Superior…show more content…
The state notes that it was not until 2009 that the Indiana Code was amended to state “if any part of a listed tax has been erroneously refunded by the department, the erroneous refund may be recovered through the assessment procedures established in this chapter.” Ind. Code § 6-8.1-5-2(g) (2009). The tax court rejected the argument that the DOR had no statutory authority to recover an erroneously issued refund. UACC Midwest, Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 667 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 1996). The State’s claim that the DOR did not have the authority to recover an erroneous refund is wrong because the case decided in 1996 gave the DOR the authority to recover the erroneously issued refund. The last issue the State raised was that it will be without recourse because the statute of limitations has expired. Defendant filed its corporate tax return in October 2002; thus the statute of limitations expired in October 2005 pursuant to UACC Midwest, Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 629 N.E.2d 1295 (Ind. Tax. Ct. 1996). The DOR did not issue the “Proposed Assessment” until April 2006. The Court of Appeals found that the statute of limitations had
Open Document