Summary
The Indiana Tax Court addresses whether cell phones qualify as exempt telecommunications equipment under Indiana Code § 6-2.5-5-13. The court holds that the statutory phrase “radio or microwave transmitting or receiving equipment” includes New Cingular’s cell phones and that New Cingular was the acquiring party for purposes of the exemption. The court grants partial summary judgment to New Cingular on exemption eligibility but denies summary judgment on the requested tax refund because unresolved factual matters remain.
Holdings
- Cell phones qualify as "radio or microwave transmitting or receiving equipment" under the plain and ordinary meaning of that statutory phrase. The exemption is not limited to central network infrastructure, equipment in the provider's custody and control, or equipment used to serve all customers.
- New Cingular was the relevant person acquiring the property because the relevant acquisition was its purchase of the phones from suppliers, not the later acquisition of phones by its customers.
- New Cingular was not entitled to summary judgment requiring the Department to refund the use tax paid because factual questions concerning the amount of tax due remained and the issue had not been adequately briefed.
Questions Presented
- Whether cell phones qualify as "radio or microwave transmitting or receiving equipment" exempt from sales and use tax under Indiana Code section 6-2.5-5-13.
- Whether New Cingular, rather than its customers, was the "person acquiring the property" for purposes of applying the telecommunications equipment exemption to New Cingular's use tax liability.
- Whether New Cingular was entitled at summary judgment to an order requiring the Department to refund the use tax paid.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (12)
- Beradi v. Hardware Wholesalers, Inc., 625 N.E.2d 1259, 1261 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)(followed)
- Crown Prop. Grp., LLC v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 135 N.E.3d 671, 675 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2019)(followed)
- Subaru-Isuzu Auto., Inc. v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 782 N.E.2d 1071, 1073 (Ind. Tax Ct. 2003)(followed)
- Loomis v. ACE Am. Ins., 244 N.E.3d 908, 916 (Ind. 2024)(followed)
- Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. 303, 313 (2025) (Thomas, J., concurring)(followed)
- Indiana Alcohol & Tobacco Comm’n v. Spirited Sales, LLC, 79 N.E.3d 371, 376 (Ind. 2017)(followed)
- Kitchell v. Franklin, 997 N.E.2d 1020, 1026 (Ind. 2013)(followed)
- Estate of Meyer, 668 N.E.2d 263, 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)(followed)
- Department of Treasury v. Muessel, 32 N.E.2d 596, 598 (Ind. 1941)(followed)
- Cutchin v. Beard, 171 N.E.3d 991, 997 (Ind. 2021)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 12.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…