Form Mf 04-8 - Recommendation Form For Disposition Page 4


Following the first audit, several IFTA-member jurisdictions, including
Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio, made formal requests to the Department for a re-audit of the
taxpayer’s records. (Stip. #20)
13. The protesting jurisdictions objected to the Department’s use of mileage error
factors derived from the 1994-97 audit. They contended that the error factors were not
representative of the taxpayer’s business operations during the audit period. (Group Ex.
14. The Department performed a re-audit and did so with the assistance of
several out-of-state auditors. (Ex. #1)
15. After the re-audit, on July 30, 2003 the Department issued form EDA-123
Notice of Proposed Liability indicating the taxpayer was entitled to a net tax reduction of
$46,371.27. The Notice did not assess a penalty, but showed interest due in the amount
of $97,544.63 (as calculated from January 1, 1999 through July 31, 2003). (Stip. #23)
16. As a result of the re-audit, miles and corresponding tax liabilities were re-
allocated again, but in amounts that differed significantly from the initial audit. For
example, the Department determined that the taxpayer was entitled to a refund from
Illinois and Indiana in the amounts of $69,090.26 and $33,033.42 respectively. Also, the
Department determined that the taxpayer owed Missouri $94,034.14 in tax, plus interest
at the rate of 1% per month. (Stip. #24)
17. After giving the taxpayer credit for the $6,328.30 payment made following
the initial audit, the re-audit resulted in a net liability of $44,845.06, all of which was
interest. On August 4, 2003, the taxpayer paid this amount to the Department under
protest. (Stip. #25, 26)


00 votes

Related Articles

Related forms

Related Categories

Parent category: Legal