Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Richardson's RV Inc. v. Indiana Department of State Revenue

Tax Court of Indiana

August 1, 2017

RICHARDSON'S RV INC., Petitioner,
v.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE, Respondent.

          ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONER: RANDAL J. KALTENMARK ZIAADDIN MOLLABASHY BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Indianapolis, IN

          ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: CURTIS T. HILL, JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA EVAN W. BARTEL, JESSICA REAGAN GASTINEAU, WINSTON LIN DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL

          ORDER ON PETITIONER'S MOTION TO STRIKE

          Martha Blood Wentworth, Judge Indiana Tax Court

         Richardson's RV Inc. moved to strike certain evidence designated by the Department of State Revenue in response to Richardson's motion for summary judgment, which the Court granted in an order handed down concurrently with this order. See generally Richardson's RV Inc. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue, No. 49T10-1504-TA-00016, Slip. op., (Ind. Tax Ct. August 1, 2017). The Court grants Richardson's' Motion to Strike in part and denies it in part.

         FACTS

         On September 18, 2015, Richardson's filed a motion for summary judgment in its appeal of the Department's final determination assessing additional sales tax liabilities for the 2010, 2011, and 2012 tax years. In its response, the Department designated the following evidence that is the subject of this Motion: 1) Kyle Richardson's deposition and 2) written statements by three of Richardson's' customers and specific references to them in David Strom's affidavit. (See Resp't Br. Opp'n Pet'r Mot. Summ. J. ("Resp't Br.") at 4-6 (citing Resp't Des'g Evid., Ex. R-7, Ex. R-4, Ex. R-9, ¶ 11).) Richardson's moved to strike this evidence claiming it was lacking foundation, irrelevant, and inadmissible hearsay. (See Pet'r Reply Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. ("Pet'r Reply Br.") at 5-7.) The Court heard the parties' argument on Richardson's' Motion during the summary judgment hearing on April 7, 2016.

         ANALYSIS AND ORDER

         Standard of Review

         This Court acts as a trial court when reviewing the Department's assessments. See Ind. Code § 6-8.1-5-1(i) (2017). As a result, the Court is afforded broad discretion in resolving motions to strike. See, e.g., Vernon v. Kroger Co., 712 N.E.2d 976, 982 (Ind. 1999). "Moreover, when ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this Court will only consider properly designated evidence that would be admissible at trial." Miller Pipeline Corp. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 995 N.E.2d 733, 736 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2013) (citations omitted).

          Discussion

         1. Kyle Richardson's Deposition

         The Department's designated evidence included the deposition of Kyle Richardson, who had attested to Richardson's' business practices. (See Resp't Br. at 4-6 (citing Resp't Des'g Evid., Ex. R-7).) Richardson's moved to strike Kyle's deposition arguing that the Department failed to lay a foundation establishing that Kyle had personal knowledge of Richardson's' business practices during the years at issue. (See Pet'r Reply Br. at 5.) Moreover, Richardson's argues that Kyle's deposition testimony is irrelevant because he became a Richardson's employee beginning in 2013, after the years at issue. (See Pet'r Reply Br. at 5; Hr'g Tr. at 12-13.)

         Kyle testified from his personal knowledge of Richardson's' business practices in 2013. His testimony, however, was related back to the years at issue through

         Richardson's' Vice President and Chief Financial Officer's testimony, establishing that Richardson's had not changed its business practices from the years at issue through the period of Kyle's employment. (See Resp't Des'g Evid., Ex. R-8 at 155.) See also Ind. Evidence Rule 104(b) (stating that "[w]hen the relevance of evidence depends on whether a fact exists, proof must be introduced sufficient to support a finding that the fact does exist"). Accordingly, Kyle's deposition testimony is relevant because it tended to make the facts of Richardson's business practices more or less probable than they would have been otherwise and because the facts about these business practices are of consequence in determining the outcome of the case. See Ind. Evidence Rule 401 (explaining that "[e]vidence is relevant if . . . it has any tendency to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.