Legal Opinion · Dissent

Indiana Department of State Revenue v. Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided October 5, 2010No. 49S10-1010-TA-519Published

1DissentBoehm, Justice

I respectfully dissent. I believe the majority adopts a definition of contribution to capital that incorrectly assumes a contribution to capital is for no consideration, and then imports contract law notions of consideration to conclude that Belterra's transfer of this riverboat to its subsidiary was not a contribution to capital.

The sales and use taxes are imposed on "retail transactions," which are defined as "selling at retail." Ind.Code § 6-2.5-4-1(a) (2010). A person is defined as "selling at retail" when:

[I]n the ordinary course of his regularly conducted trade or business, he: (1)…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Commissioner v. FinkSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  2. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc., and Its Subsidiary, Super Market Developers, Inc. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
  3. Mason Metals Co. v. Indiana Department of State RevenueIndiana Tax Court · 1992
  4. Belterra Resort Indiana, LLC v. Indiana Department of State RevenueIndiana Tax Court · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API