Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR PETITIONERS: LARRY J. STROBLE RANDAL J. KALTENMARK BARNES & THORNBURG LLP Indianapolis, IN

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT: STEVE CARTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF INDIANA KRISTEN M. KEMP DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Indianapolis, IN ______________________________________________________________________

IN THE INDIANA TAX COURT
RAYTECH CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES, ) ) ) Petitioners, ) ) v. ) Cause No. 49T10-0306-TA-00031 ) INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF ) STATE REVENUE, ) ) Respondent. ) ______________________________________________________________________ ORDER ON PARTIES' CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOT FOR PUBLICATION December 1, 2005 FISHER, J. The Petitioners, Raytech Corporation and Subsidiaries (Raytech), appeal the final determination of the Indiana Department of State Revenue (Department) denying their claims for refund of gross income tax (GIT) and claims of entitlement to additional statutory interest on refunds of adjusted gross income tax (AGIT) and supplemental net income tax (SNIT) for the 1992-1997 tax years (years at issue). The matter is currently before the Court on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The issues the Court must address are: (1) whether Raytech's claims for refund of GIT were timely filed with the Department; and (2) at what point does statutory interest on refunds of AGIT

and SNIT begin to accrue. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Raytech in part and the Department in part. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The material facts in this case are undisputed. Raytech is a Delaware

Corporation with its principal place of business in Shelton, Connecticut. While Raytech is a global manufacturer of energy absorption and power transmission products and custom engineered components, it acts primarily as a management company for its subsidiaries. In the late 1980s, Raytech divested its interest in Raymark Corporation (Raymark), an entity engaged in an asbestos related field. Raytech, however, was named as a defendant in several product liability lawsuits against Raymark and its successors in interest. As a result, Raytech filed for bankruptcy protection in 1989. Nevertheless, Raytech continued to file returns reporting its GIT, AGIT and SNIT. In 2001, when Raytech emerged from bankruptcy, it was required to issue a significant payout as a settlement of the product liability claims, resulting in a multimillion dollar net operating loss (NOL). Pursuant to Section 172 of the Internal Revenue Code, Raytech was able to carry back the NOL to each of the 10 taxable years preceding the year of the loss (2001). See 26 U.S.C.A.

Download Raytech Corp. and Subsidiaries v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue.pdf

Indiana Law