NOTICE: IC § 6-8.1-3-3.5 and IC § 4-22-7-7 require the publication of this document in the Indiana Register. This document provides the general public with information about the Department's official position concerning a specific set of facts and issues. This document is effective on its date of publication and remains in effect until the date it is superseded or deleted by the publication of another document in the Indiana Register. The "Holding" section of this document is provided for the convenience of the reader and is not part of the analysis contained in this Letter of Findings.

Individual was required to file a 2012 Indiana individual income tax return because he was domiciled in Indiana and thus was an Indiana resident.

I. Indiana Individual Income Tax - Non-filer.

Authority: IC § 6-3-1-3.5; IC § 6-3-1-12; IC § 6-3-1-13; IC § 6-3-2-1; IC § 6-3-2-2; IC § 6-8.1-5-1; Lafayette Square Amoco, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 867 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007); Indiana Dep't of State Revenue v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc., 963 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2012); Scopelite v. Indiana Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012); Croop v. Walton, 157 N.E. 275 (Ind. 1927); State Election Bd. v. Bayh, 521 N.E.2d 1313 (Ind. 1988); 45 IAC 3.1-1-21; 45 IAC 3.1-1-22; 45 IAC 3.1-1-23.

Taxpayer protests the Department's proposed assessment for the 2012 tax year.

Taxpayer is an individual who was a longtime Indiana resident and currently lives outside of Indiana. Taxpayer has been licensed to practice medicine in Indiana since 1984. Taxpayer periodically renews his physician license since. In addition, Taxpayer maintained and renewed his Indiana driver's license. Taxpayer also renewed his vehicle registration with the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles ("BMV").

Taxpayer did not file an Indiana income tax return for the tax year 2012. The Indiana Department of Revenue ("Department") determined that for the tax year 2012, Taxpayer was an Indiana resident, that Taxpayer failed to file his Indiana income tax return, and that Indiana income tax was due for the 2012 tax year.

Taxpayer timely protested the assessment. An administrative phone hearing was held. This Letter of Findings ensues and addresses Taxpayer's protest of the proposed assessment for the tax year 2012. Additional facts will be provided as necessary.

I. Indiana Individual Income Tax - Non-filer.

The Department, based on publicly verifiable information, determined that Taxpayer was an Indiana resident. Specifically, the Department found that Taxpayer maintains an Indiana driver's license, which was renewed in 2012; that Taxpayer registered and periodically renewed his vehicle registration in Indiana; and that Taxpayer was licensed to practice medicine in Indiana and has been maintaining "Active" status regarding his Indiana physician license. The Department thus concluded that Taxpayer was an Indiana resident and therefore required to file his 2012 Indiana income tax return and that Indiana income tax was due for the 2012 tax year.

Taxpayer, to the contrary, claimed that he was not required to file his 2012 Indiana income tax return and did not owe any Indiana income tax because he moved to Louisiana to start his new employment at a local hospital. Taxpayer claimed that he rented an apartment while he worked in Louisiana during the tax year at issue and paid income tax there. The issue is whether, for the tax year 2012, Taxpayer was an Indiana resident and therefore subject to Indiana income tax.

As a threshold issue, all tax assessments are prima facie evidence that the Department's claim for the unpaid tax is valid; the taxpayer bears the burden of proving that any assessment is incorrect. IC § 6-8.1-5-1(c); Lafayette Square Amoco, Inc. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 867 N.E.2d 289, 292 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007); Indiana Dep't of State Revenue v. Rent-A-Center East, Inc., 963 N.E.2d 463, 466 (Ind. 2012). Thus, the taxpayer is required to provide documentation explaining and supporting its challenge that the Department's assessment is wrong. Poorly developed and non-cogent arguments are subject to waiver. Scopelite v. Indiana Dep't of Local Gov't Fin., 939 N.E.2d 1138, 1145 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2010); Wendt LLP v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 977 N.E.2d 480, 486 n.9 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2012).

Indiana imposes a tax "on the adjusted gross income of every resident person, and on that part of the adjusted gross income derived from sources within Indiana of every nonresident person." IC § 6-3-2-1(a). IC § 6-3-2-2(a) specifically outlines what is income derived from Indiana sources and subject to Indiana income tax. To efficiently and effectively compute what is considered the taxpayers' Indiana income tax, the Indiana statute refers to the Internal Revenue Code. IC § 6-3-1-3.5(a) provides the starting point to determine the taxpayers' taxable income and to calculate what would be their Indiana income tax after applying certain additions and subtractions to that starting point.

For Indiana income tax purposes, resident "includes (a) any individual who was domiciled in this state during the taxable year, or (b) any individual who maintains a permanent place of residence in this state and spends more than one hundred eighty-three (183) days of the taxable year within this state. . . ." IC § 6-3-1-12; see also 45 IAC 3.1-1-21. Nonresident is "any person who is not a resident of Indiana." IC § 6-3-1-13.

In this instance, Taxpayer's supporting documentation demonstrated that he did not spend "more than one hundred eighty-three (183) days of" 2012 in Indiana. Thus, this Letter of Findings only addresses whether Taxpayer, a longtime Indiana resident and physician, was domiciled in Indiana during 2012.

Additionally, 45 IAC 3.1-1-23(2) provides, in relevant part:

Accordingly, a new domicile is not necessarily created when individuals move to a new place. Rather, the individuals must move to the new place and have intent to remain there indefinitely. When a taxpayer becomes an actual domiciliary of another state, only his or her income derived from Indiana source will be subject to Indiana income tax. Otherwise, general rules apply.

In Croop v. Walton, 157 N.E. 275 (Ind. 1927), a taxpayer who was domiciled in Michigan sold his home in Michigan and moved to a new residence in Indiana where he and his wife lived for several years for the benefit of his wife's health. The taxpayer lived in the Indiana home "on account of the mental and physical condition of his wife, and continued to occupy it until such time as she could safely return to [Michigan] to live." Id. at 276. The court concluded that, based on the level of activity he maintained in Michigan and lack of intention to abandon his domicile, the taxpayer, Mr. Walton, did not change his domicile from Michigan to Indiana. The court explained, in relevant part, that:

In explaining the difference between "residence" and "domicile," the court in Croop stated:

In State Election Bd. v. Bayh, 521 N.E.2d 1313 (Ind. 1988), the Indiana Supreme Court considered the issue of the meaning of "domicile" in determining that Mr. Bayh met the residency requirement for the office of Governor. Mr. Bayh's domicile remained in Indiana even though he moved to different states for various reasons for many years. The court stated, in pertinent part:

Taxpayer, in this instance, argued that he was not an Indiana resident for 2012 and did not have Indiana source income. Taxpayer stated, in relevant part, that:

To support his protest, Taxpayer offered copies of his lease agreement and monthly payments for rent and utilities. Taxpayer also provided a copy of his 2012 Louisiana income tax return and a letter from his former employer stating that Taxpayer worked in Louisiana from February 2012 until December 2015. Taxpayer stated that he currently manages his own business in South Carolina although he still practices medicine occasionally.

As discussed earlier, Taxpayer may be considered a resident of more than one state at the same time. But, he can only have one domicile. Once his domicile is established, Taxpayer is presumed to be domiciled there until he abandons the old one and establishes a new domicile somewhere else. "Domicile is not determined by residence alone, but upon a consideration of all the circumstances of the case." That is, a person may have more than one residence at the same time. From time to time, he may change from one address to another, temporarily or otherwise. But, changing mailing address alone is not sufficient to show a change of the person's domicile.

In this instance, Taxpayer was a longtime Indiana resident who obtained a physician's license to practice medicine in Indiana since 1984. Before leaving for new employment in Louisiana, Taxpayer sold his Indiana house, but continues using an address which he claimed to be his former spouse's Indiana address for license renewals, car registration, and insurance purposes. Taxpayer periodically renews and maintains his Indiana physician license "active" status. The renewals of his professional license alone is not sufficient to conclude Taxpayer's intent to remain - and thus be domiciled - in Indiana. However, Taxpayer also affirmatively and periodically renewed his Indiana driver's license and Indiana motor vehicle registration on his vehicle including the tax year at issue. Those actions further strengthen and support the fact that Taxpayer did not intend to abandon his Indiana domicile. Specifically, in this instance, Taxpayer presented his Indiana driver's license and his Indiana motor vehicle registration to reduce the insurance premiums and to obtain a recreational license while he worked in Louisiana. The actions further expressly affirmed his ties with Indiana and demonstrated that he did not intend to abandon his Indiana domicile. Since Taxpayer has not abandon his Indiana domicile, he could not acquire a new domicile elsewhere.

In short, given the totality of the circumstances, Taxpayer was Indiana resident because he was domiciled in Indiana and thus was required to file 2012 Indiana income tax return.

Taxpayer's protest is respectfully denied.