Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Indiana Gamma Gamma of Alpha Tau Omega, Inc.
Decision Date | 28 August 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 1-1177A282,1-1177A282 |
Citation | 394 N.E.2d 187,181 Ind.App. 664 |
Parties | INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF STATE REVENUE, Donald H. Clark, Commissioner, Defendant-Appellant, v. INDIANA GAMMA GAMMA OF ALPHA TAU OMEGA, INCORPORATED, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
William M. Evans, G. Pearson Smith, Jr., Bose & Evans, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.
Charles B. Huppert, Huppert & Wilcox, Howard S. Wilcox, Jr., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant Indiana Department of State Revenue (Department) appeals a judgment entered in Vigo Superior Court in favor of plaintiff-appellee Indiana Gamma Gamma of Alpha Tau Omega, Incorporated (ATO).
ATO is organized and operated as a not-for-profit corporation which owns and operates a college fraternity house and acts as the legal entity of the fraternity chapter called Indiana Gamma Gamma of Alpha Tau Omega and located at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (Rose-Hulman), a not-for-profit educational institution of higher learning.
In July, 1972, ATO brought suit against the Department for a refund of taxes and for a declaratory judgment, alleging that:
1) ATO had been compelled to make Indiana gross income tax payments and was wrongfully denied a refund, and it is wholly exempt from such tax under Ind.Code 6-2-1-7.
2) Certain of ATO's purchases are exempt from the Indiana gross retail tax and use tax under Ind.Code 6-2-1-39. 1
3) ATO was entitled to a refund of Indiana gross retail tax which it had paid to the State on food sold to Rose-Hulman students but which it had not collected from the students, and these food transactions are exempt from the gross retail tax under Ind.Code 6-2-1-39.
ATO argued that it is organized and operated exclusively for educational purposes and is, therefore, wholly exempt from the gross income tax. ATO claimed that it is not a predominantly social organization and, hence, certain of its purchases are exempt from the gross retail tax. Finally, ATO maintained that the meals it furnishes to Rose-Hulman students are exempt from the gross retail tax under the statute that exempts the furnishing of food by non-profit colleges to their students. 2
The Department contended that ATO is a social organization and, therefore, is only partially exempt from the gross income tax, and is not exempt from the gross retail tax on personal property purchased for its own use and consumption. Finally, the Department argued that the gross retail tax exemption for food furnished by non-profit colleges to their students does not apply to food furnished by fraternities.
This cause was tried to the court and, in response to the Department's pretrial request, the trial court entered special findings under Ind.Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 52(A), accompanied by the following judgment:
"IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court, as follows, to-wit:
1. That Plaintiff, Indiana Gamma Gamma of Alpha Tau Omega, Inc., is hereby exempt from paying Indiana Gross Income Tax under the provisions of I.C. § 6-2-1-7(i)(1).
2. That Plaintiff, Indiana Gamma Gamma of Alpha Tau Omega, Inc., is hereby exempt from paying Indiana Sales and Use Tax on its purchase under the provisions of I.C. § 6-2-1-39(b)(8).
3. That Plaintiff, Indiana Gamma Gamma of Alpha Tau Omega, Inc., is hereby exempt from collecting and paying over to the Defendant, Indiana Department of State Revenue, sales tax and use tax under the provisions of I.C. § 6-2-1-39(b) (7) for food said Plaintiff sells or furnishes to students in attendance at the college where it is chartered and affiliated, namely, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology.
4. That the Plaintiff, Indiana Gamma Gamma of Alpha Tau Omega, Inc., recover from the Defendant, Indiana Department of State Revenue, the aggregate sum of Two Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Five Dollars and Seventy-Six Cents ($2,965.76) together with interest and costs of this action.
5. That students in attendance at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology are exempt from paying sales and use tax for food and beverages purchased from, or furnished by, Plaintiff, Indiana Gamma Gamma of Alpha Tau Omega, Inc."
The Department initiated its appeal to this court and moved for a stay of execution pending the outcome. After oral argument, we entered an order suspending the relief granted by the judgment and staying any execution or other proceedings on the judgment until further order of this court.
The Department's appeal of the trial court's denial of its motion to correct errors raises these issues for review:
1) Did the trial court err in concluding that ATO is wholly exempt from the gross income tax because it failed to find, and could not have found, that ATO is exclusively educational?
2) Did the trial court err in concluding that certain ATO purchases are exempt from the gross retail tax because it failed to find, and could not have found, that ATO is not predominantly social, and because said conclusion conflicts with its findings of fact?
3) Did the trial court err in concluding ATO's food sales to students are exempt from the gross retail tax because it failed to find, and could not have found, that ATO is a college or university, and because its findings respecting control of ATO by Rose-Hulman are irrelevant and not supported by sufficient evidence?
4) Was the declaratory relief granted by the trial court outside the scope of its subject matter jurisdiction?
We reverse.
We must first address the Department's contention that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief respecting ATO's liability for paying the gross income tax and for paying and collecting the gross retail tax.
In relation to ATO, the trial court's judgment contained five pronouncements: 1) that ATO is exempt from paying the gross income tax; 2) that ATO is to recover the gross income tax it has paid; 3) that ATO is exempt from paying the gross retail tax on some of its purchases; 4) that ATO is exempt from collecting the gross retail tax on its food sales to Rose-Hulman students; and 5) that ATO is to recover the amount it has paid to the Department as gross retail tax on these food sales.
The Department contends that the three grants of declaratory relief are contrary to law because they contravene the prescribed statutory method of challenging the imposition of these taxes. The Department argues that the prescribed method is to pay the tax and seek a refund under two applicable statutes.
In relation to the gross income tax, Ind.Code 6-2-1-19 states, in part:
Ind.Code 6-2-1-51 makes the above language applicable to the gross retail tax as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Reed v. United States, Civ. No. F 81-164.
...may not be raised by one not belonging to the class alleged to be discriminated against." Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Indiana Gamma Gamma, Inc., 181 Ind.App. 664, 394 N.E.2d 187, 97 (1979). Here, it would appear that standing to challenge I.C. 4-3-3-1 would inure to landowners wh......
-
Indiana Dept. of State Revenue v. Food Marketing Corp.
...226 Ind. 293, 79 N.E.2d 651; City of South Bend v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac (1879), 69 Ind. 344; Indiana Dept. of State Rev. v. Ind. Gamma Gamma (1979), Ind.App., 394 N.E.2d 187; State, Dept. of Rev. Gross I. T. Div. v. Bethel San., Inc. (1975), 165 Ind.App. 421, 332 N.E.2d 808; Indi......
-
Dotlich v. Dotlich
...points out that a judgment may not be rendered for or against a non-party. Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Indiana Gamma Gamma of Alpha Tau Omega, Inc. (1979), 181 Ind.App. 664, 394 N.E.2d 187, trans. denied. The law in Indiana specifically regarding a court's authority to award a ju......
-
State v. Sproles
...reliance on Ridgely and held that the refund process was indeed the sole remedy. Id. at 211-13. In Indiana Dept. of State Rev. v. Indiana Gamma Gamma, 181 Ind.App. 664, 394 N.E.2d 187 (1979), the issue before the Court of Appeals was whether the Vigo Circuit Court had subject-matter jurisdi......