…
Taxpayer states that it does not question the Department's
authority to make adjustments to Taxpayer's Indiana AGIT, but rather it
questions the Department's reasoning to make adjustments. Taxpayer states that
it had been audited by the Department for the years 2000 through 2002 which
concerned the same issue under protest in this LOF. Taxpayer states that it
went through the protest process and that the Letter of Findings (LOF
02-20060067, the reasoning of which is hereby incorporated into this LOF) in
that case denied the protest, but that the Department and Taxpayer reached a
settlement agreement which covered those protest years of 2000-02, plus the
years of 2004-06 for which Taxpayer had been conducting its business in the
same manner as the protest years…
In the instant protest, Taxpayer states that it would be
equitable for the Department to follow the same terms as in the settlement
agreement for the years under protest. The Department notes that the settlement
agreement limited itself to the years 2000 through 2002 and 2004 through 2006,
and that in the instant case the Department did not make any changes to the
years 2006. The only changes were made to the NOL calculations for the
subsequent years of 2007 and 2008. As explained at the hearing, it is beyond
the scope of a Letter of Findings to answer Taxpayer's question. Rather, the
protest process is a taxpayer's opportunity to present its reasoning and
supporting documentation behind its protest of a particular proposed
assessment.
In conclusion, Taxpayer has protested that the Department
should follow the same settlement guidelines it agreed to for 2000-02 and
2004-06. The Department notes that each tax year stands on its own merits and
that the settlement agreement terms only applied to one year (2006) of the
current audit period. The Department followed the terms of the settlement
agreement for 2006 and then considered the other years (2007 and 2008) as it
would any years for any taxpayer. A Letter of Findings is not the forum for
addressing Taxpayer's arguments of equity.