Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 867 N.E.2d 289, 291 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007). Consequently, a taxpayer is required to provide documentation explaining and supporting his or her challenge that the Department's position is wrong. Further, "[W]hen [courts] examine a statute that an agency is 'charged with enforcing . . . [courts] defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of [the] statute even over an equally reasonable interpretation by another party.'" Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579, 583 (Ind. 2014). Thus, all interpretations of Indiana tax law contained within this decision, as well as the preceding audit, shall be entitled to deference. The Department first refers to IC § 6-6-4.1-14, which states:
Appears in 2 contracts
Samples: Department of State Revenue, Department of State Revenue
Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 867 897 N.E.2d 289, 291 292 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007). Consequently, a taxpayer is required to provide documentation explaining and supporting his or her challenge that the Department's position is wrong. Further, "[W]hen [courts] examine a statute that an agency is 'charged with enforcing . . . [courts] defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of [the] statute even over an equally reasonable interpretation by another party.'" Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579, 583 (Ind. 2014). Thus, all interpretations of Indiana tax law contained within this decision, as well as the preceding audit, shall be entitled to deference. The Department first refers to IC § 6-6-4.1-14, which states:
Appears in 2 contracts
Samples: Department of State Revenue, iac.iga.in.gov
Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 867 897 N.E.2d 289, 291 292 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2007). Consequently, a taxpayer Taxpayer is required to provide documentation explaining and supporting his or her challenge that the Department's position is wrong. Further, "[W]hen [courts] examine a statute that an agency is 'charged with enforcing . . . [courts] defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of [the] statute even over an equally reasonable interpretation by another party.'" Dept. of State Revenue v. Caterpillar, Inc., 15 N.E.3d 579, 583 (Ind. 2014). Thus, all interpretations of Indiana tax law contained within this decision, as well as the preceding audit, shall be entitled to deference. The Department first refers to IC § 6-6-4.1-14, which states:
Appears in 1 contract
Samples: Department of State Revenue