The Department asserts that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the undisputed material facts show that Ms. Gibson’s 2007 refund claim was untimely filed pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-8.1-9-1.3 (See Resp’t Br. at 7-8 (footnote added).) Ms. Gibson, however, argues that principles of equity rather than the strict letter of the law should guide the Court in resolving this matter. Specifically, Ms. Gibson explains that she simply made an honest mistake in attempting to comply with Indiana’s ever-evolving tax laws and that she should not be penalized for that mistake. (See Pet’r Br. at 1.) According to Ms. Gibson, line 2 on Form IT-40, the “Tax Add-Back” line, has not materially changed since 1993 and, as a result, she received insufficient notice regarding the 1999 amendment of Indiana Code § 6-3-1-3.5. (See Hr’g Tr. at 5-8; Pet’r Br. at 1-2, Exs. 1-8.) See also note 1. Ms. Gibson further argues that this lack of notice was even more egregious because the Department did not identify her reporting error for twelve years. (See Hr’g Tr. at 7-8; Pet’r Br. 1.) Ms. Gibson contends that a finding in favor of the Department imposes an unreasonable penalty upon her (i.e., the loss of thousands of dollars) in light of the facts and circumstances that led to her mistaken overpayment of income tax. (See Hr’g Tr. at 5-6; Pet’r Br. 1.) Ms. Gibson, therefore, requests that the Court award her all of the income tax overpayments made for the 1999 through 2007 tax years. The Court, however, cannot grant Ms. Gibson’s request.
Indiana Code § 6-8.1-9-1, in relevant part, provides that:
If a person has paid more tax than the person determines is legally due for a particular taxable period, the person may file a claim for a refund with the department. . . . [I]n order to obtain the refund, the person must file the claim with the department within three (3) years after the latter of the following:
(1) The due date of the return.
(2) The date of payment.
IND. CODE § 6-8.1-9-1(a) (2011) (amended 2012). There is no dispute that Ms. Gibson’s 2007 IT-40 was due on April 15, 2008. Consequently, Ms. Gibson needed to file her refund claim for the 2007 tax year on or before April 15, 2011. Ms. Gibson, however, did not file her 2007 refund claim (via her 2007 amended IT-40) until April 26, 2011, exactly eleven days too late.
Furthermore, the Court need not determine whether the changes to line 2 of the IT-40 provided Ms. Gibson with sufficient notice as to the 1999 amendment of Indiana Code § 6-3-1-3.5 because the IT-40 instruction booklets for the 1999 and 2000 tax years clearly provided notice as to the amendment. (See Resp’t Mot. Summ. J., Ex. G.) See also http://www.in.gov/dor/3488.htm. Moreover, the IT-40 instruction booklets for the 2001 through 2010 tax years contain the following statement with respect to line 2 and the adding back of property taxes: “Do not add back any property taxes on this line.” (See Resp’t Mot. Summ. J., Ex. G.) See also http://www.in.gov/dor/3488.htm.
Ms. Gibson’s situation reflects some of the challenges Indiana citizens have in understanding the changes to, and complexities of, our tax system. While the Court is sympathetic to Ms. Gibson’s plight, it must apply the laws as they are written. See Scopelite v. Indiana Dep’t of Local Gov’t Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1144 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010) (stating that the Court will not read provisions into statutes where they do not exist) (citation omitted). Furthermore, it is a well-established principle that courts of equity aid the vigilant, not those who have slept upon their rights. See SMDfund, Inc. v. Fort Wayne-Allen Cnty. Airport Auth., 831 N.E.2d 725, 729 (Ind. 2005), cert. denied. Therefore, the Court must affirm the Department’s denial of Ms. Gibson’s 2007 refund claim because Ms. Gibson has not shown that the refund claim was timely filed or that her delayed filing was excusable.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11011201tgf.pdf
