Because Taxpayer did not maintain complete and accurate
sales records, the audit resorted to a projection methodology. This alternative
is authorized under Indiana law. IC § 6-8.1-3-12(b) provides as follows:
The department may audit any returns with respect to the
listed taxes using statistical sampling. If the taxpayer and the department
agree to a sampling method to be used, the sampling method is binding on the
taxpayer and the department in determining the total amount of additional tax
due or amounts to be refunded. (Emphasis added).
Taxpayer makes objections too numerous to enumerate but the
issue is whether Taxpayer has met its burden of demonstrating that the original
assessment was incorrect. To that end, Taxpayer has provided 14 invoices
evidencing sales to Indiana customers along with four pages entitled
"Selected Fields [f]rom Sales Sample Month" which Taxpayer concludes
are sufficient to establish that it owes approximately $200 in additional sales
tax.
The Department has no reason to call into question the
documents provided but must question whether the records are sufficient to
establish that the original assessment was incorrect. Taxpayer's representative
admits that "I may have missed some sales due to my bookkeeping...."
and asks the Department to overlook what he admits is Taxpayer's "sloppy
books for the past few years...."
Taxpayer asks the Department to rely on Taxpayer's scanty
records, overturn the audit's reasoned conclusion, and arbitrarily determine an
alternative assessment somewhere between $6,400 and $200 which is "fair
and reasonable...." Taxpayer asks too much.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20120425-IR-045120174NRA.xml.html