Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 6-7-3-5 (2026)
Imposition of tax; exemption
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. The controlled substance excise tax is imposed on controlled substances that are:
(1) delivered;
(2) possessed; or
(3) manufactured;
in Indiana in violation of IC 35-48-4 or 21 U.S.C. 841 through 21 U.S.C. 852. The tax does not apply to a controlled substance that is distributed, manufactured, or dispensed by a person registered under IC 35-48-3.
As added by P.L.50-1992, SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases, 1995–2009 · leading case: Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 1996).
Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 1996). “The law does say that a taxpayer owes the tax regardless of whether she is arrested.”
Whitt v. State, 645 N.E.2d 677 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “I.C. § 6-7-3-5. [6] I.C. § 6-7-3-1, et seq.”
Hardy v. Hardy, 910 N.E.2d 851 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “Ind.Code § 6-7-3-5. 2 . LC. § 34-24-1-1(a)(5).”
Bailey v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 660 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. 1995). “[2] Section 6-7-3-5 dictates that ownership is not the triggering event when it provides that "[t]he controlled substance excise tax is imposed on controlled substances that are: (1) delivered; (2) possessed; or (3) manufactured; in Indiana in violation of IC 35-48-4 or 21 U.”
State v. Mohler, 694 N.E.2d 1129 (Ind. 1998). “Ind.Code § 6-7-3-5 (Supp.1992). Although the CSET is denominated a civil penalty, we held That it was a punishment that creates a risk of determination of guilt upon which jeopardy attaches.”
Hurst v. Dep't of State Revenue, 721 N.E.2d 370 (Ind. T.C. 1999). “See Ind.Code Ann. § 6-7-3-5 (West Supp.1999).”
Hall v. Dep't of State Revenue, 720 N.E.2d 1287 (Ind. T.C. 1999). “7 See Ind.Code Ann. § 6-7-3-5 (West Supp. 1999); See also Paganelli, supra, at 1301 n.”
Horrall v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 687 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. T.C. 1997). “§ 6-7-3-5 (West Supp.1997). Second, he asserts that others are liable for the tax, specifically, the judge in his criminal case, members of the jury, the prosecutor, as well as the police because they handled and/or manufactured the marijuana in the course of Horrall's…”
Anderson v. State, 649 N.E.2d 1060 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995). “§ 6-7-3-5. The tax is due when the illegal action occurs, 1.”
Adams v. Dep't of State Revenue, 730 N.E.2d 840 (Ind. T.C. 2000). “Ind.Code Ann. § 6-7-3-5 (West 2000) reads: The controlled substance excise tax is imposed on controlled substances that are: (1) delivered; (2) possessed; or (3) manufactured; in Indiana in violation of IC 35-48^4 or 21 U.”
Newby v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 826 N.E.2d 173 (Ind. T.C. 2005). “” Ind.Code Ann. § 6-7-3-5 (West 1999). Indiana Code § 35-48-4-7 states “[a].”
Barney v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 823 N.E.2d 339 (Ind. T.C. 2005). “§ 6-7-3-5 (West 2005). CSET is a listed tax which "the [DJjepartment is required to collect or administer.”
— Ind. Code § 6-7-3-5(2) — 2 cases
Horrall v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 687 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. T.C. 1997). “§ 6-7-3-5 (West Supp.1997). Second, he asserts that others are liable for the tax, specifically, the judge in his criminal case, members of the jury, the prosecutor, as well as the police because they handled and/or manufactured the marijuana in the course of Horrall's…”
Horrall v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 687 N.E.2d 1217 (Ind. T.C. 1997).
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.