Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 6-2.5-9-3 (2026)

Personal liability of holder of taxes in trust; failure to collect and remit; offense; exception for marketplace facilitator

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Sec. 3. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) and the limited relief provided for marketplace facilitators in section 3.5 of this chapter (before its expiration), an individual who:

(1) is an individual retail merchant or is an employee, officer, or member of a corporate or partnership retail merchant; and

(2) has a duty to remit state gross retail or use taxes (as described in IC 6-2.5-3-2) to the department;

holds those taxes in trust for the state and is personally liable for the payment of those taxes, plus any penalties and interest attributable to those taxes, to the state. If the individual knowingly fails to collect or remit those taxes to the state, the individual commits a Level 6 felony.

(b) For calendar years beginning after December 31, 2021, except in cases in which the marketplace facilitator and the seller are affiliated, a marketplace facilitator is not liable under this section for failure to collect and remit gross retail and use taxes if the marketplace facilitator demonstrates to the satisfaction of the department that:

(1) the marketplace facilitator has a system in place to require the seller to provide accurate information and has made a reasonable effort to obtain accurate information from the seller about a retail transaction;

(2) the failure to collect and remit the correct tax was due to incorrect or insufficient information provided to the marketplace facilitator by the seller; and

(3) the marketplace facilitator provides information showing who the purchaser was in each transaction for which the tax had not been collected.

If the marketplace facilitator is relieved of liability under this subsection, the purchaser is liable for any amount of uncollected, unpaid, or unremitted tax.

As added by Acts 1980, P.L.52, SEC.1. Amended by P.L.26-1985, SEC.7; P.L.6-1987, SEC.6; P.L.18-1994, SEC.7; P.L.158-2013, SEC.84; P.L.108-2019, SEC.118.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases, 1990–2016 · leading case: Galligan v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 825 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. T.C. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Galligan v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 825 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. T.C. 2005). · cites it 7× “In October of 1997, the Department attempted to collect IP's unpaid tax lHabilities from Galligan pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-2.5-9-3. This statute, known as the "responsible officer statute," provided that "(aln individual who[ ] is an .”

Indiana Dep't of State Revenue v. Safayan, 654 N.E.2d 270 (Ind. 1995). · cites it 2× “Ind.Code Ann. § 6-2.5-9-3 (West 1989). The collection and remittance of the withholding tax operates about the same way.”

Arizona Dep't of Revenue v. Action Marine, Inc., 181 P.3d 188 (Ariz. 2008). “735/3-7(a) (1996); Ind.Code § 6-2.5-9-3 (2003); Iowa Code § 421.”

Orbitz, LLC v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 66 N.E.3d 1012 (Ind. T.C. 2016). · cites it 2× “5-6-7 *1018 (2004) (amended 2008); Ind.Code § 6-2.5-9-3 (2004) (amended 2013).”

Balvich v. Spicer, 894 N.E.2d 235 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “” Additionally, Indiana Code 6-2.5-9-3 provides that An individual who: (1) is an individual retail merchant or is an employee, officer, or member of a corporate or partnership retail merchant; and (2) has a duty to remit state gross retail or use taxes (as described in IC 6-2.”

Indiana Dep't of State Revenue v. Wechter, 553 N.E.2d 844 (Ind. 1990). · cites it 2× “The Department of State Revenue ruled that, under Ind.Code § 6-2.5-9-3, Wechter was personally responsible not only for the tax but for the penalty and interest.”

W&J LEASING, INC. v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 858 N.E.2d 698 (Ind. T.C. 2006). “§ 6-2.5-9-3 (West 1995). [6] WJ has provided no legal authority, however, to support its claim that where it purchased its aircraft is somehow relevant to determining whether its subsequent lease of the aircraft constitutes a taxable retail transaction under Indiana Code § 6-2.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.