Sec. 3. (a) If at any time the department finds that a
person owing taxes intends to quickly leave the state, remove his
property from the state, conceal his property in the state, or do any
other act that would jeopardize the collection of those taxes, the
department may declare the person's tax period at an end, may
immediately make an assessment for the taxes owing, and may demand
immediate payment of the amount due, without providing the notice
required in IC 6-8.1-8-2.
(b) If the department has sent a notice of proposed assessment under
section 1 of this chapter to a taxpayer by United States mail and the
notice is returned to the department because the taxpayer has moved
and the department is unable to determine the taxpayer's new address,
the department may:
(1) declare the person's tax period at an end;
(2) immediately make an assessment for the taxes owing; and
(3) demand immediate payment of the amount due;
without providing the notice required in IC 6-8.1-8-2.
(c) If the payment is not made immediately, the department may
issue or request the state police department to serve a jeopardy tax
warrant against the person and, either without or with the assistance of
the sheriffs of any counties in the state, may levy on and sell the
person's property which is located in those counties. In place of the levy
and sale procedure, the department may accept from the person a bond
for the payment of the taxes, if the bond is in an amount at least equal
to the amount of the total liability and if the bond is through a surety
acceptable to the department.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.61, SEC.1. Amended by
P.L.26-1985, SEC.14; P.L.129-2001, SEC.21.
Notes of Decisions
Garwood v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 953 N.E.2d 682 (Ind. T.C. 2011).
· cites it 28× “, the general jeopardy assessment statute, Indiana Code § 6-8.1-5-3, requires that specific exigent circumstances exist before a jeopardy assessment may be imposed: circumstances identifying the line between fair tax administra *687 tion and oppression.”
Bryant v. State, 660 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 1996).
· cites it 8× “[33] B Indiana Code § 6-7-3-13 (1993) provides that the Department of Revenue shall proceed to assess and collect CSET due under Ind.Code § 6-8.1-5-3 (1993). Under 45 Ind.”
Adams v. State, 762 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 2002).
· cites it 7× “Ind.Code § 6-8.1-5-3. These warrants empower revenue officers to "levy on and sell the [taxpayer's] *741 property" and to do so "either without or with the assistance of the sheriffs of any counties in the state.”
Garwood v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 939 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. T.C. 2010).
· cites it 12× “Admittedly, Indiana Code § 6-8.1-5-3, on its face, provides no opportunity to contest jeopardy tax assessments; nevertheless, the Indiana Supreme Court has pronounced that taxpayers like the Garwoods may challenge jeopardy tax assessments pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-8.”
Virginia Garwood & Kristen Garwood v. State of Indiana, 77 N.E.3d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “at 688 (quoting I.C. § 6-8.1-5-3). The court’s opinion took a generally dim view of what it characterized as DOR’s effort to “wiel[d] the power of jeopardy assessments as a sword to eliminate a socially undesirable activity .”
State v. Sproles, 672 N.E.2d 1353 (Ind. 1996).
“Cope § 6-7-3-13 (1993), the Department may expedite CSET collections by requiring immediate payment of the tax upon assessment.”
State of Indiana Dep't of Revenue v. Adams, 762 N.E.2d 728 (Ind. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Instead, they are issued under Ind.Code § 6-8.1-5-3. Id. As such, the Department will be able to issue jeopardy warrants and levy on CSET assessments in most circumstances without violating the Fourth Amendment.”
Gordon A. Etzler v. Indiana Dep't of Revenue, 43 N.E.3d 250 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 6× “The statute’s demand notice requirement is subject to an exception under Indiana Code section 6-8.1-5-3, which is discussed below.”
Vriginia Garwood v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 24 N.E.3d 648 (Ind. T.C. 2014).
· cites it 2× “On August 19, 2011, the Court held that the jeopardy tax assessments were void as a matter of law because they were not issued in accordance with Indiana Code § 6-8.1-5-3. See Garwood v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue (Garwood II), 953 N.”
State ex rel. Indiana Dep't of Revenue v. Deaton, 738 N.E.2d 695 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “1-8-3 (West 2000); see also IC § 6-8.1-5-3 (allowing the Department a jeopardy tax warrant and the immediate levy upon property if the “person owing taxes intends to quickly leave the state, remove his property from the state, conceal his property in the state, or do any other…”
Ind. Code § 6-8.1-5-3(a): 5 cases
Garwood v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 953 N.E.2d 682 (Ind. T.C. 2011).
“, the general jeopardy assessment statute, Indiana Code § 6-8.1-5-3, requires that specific exigent circumstances exist before a jeopardy assessment may be imposed: circumstances identifying the line between fair tax administra *687 tion and oppression.”
Virginia Garwood & Kristen Garwood v. State of Indiana, 77 N.E.3d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
“at 688 (quoting I.C. § 6-8.1-5-3). The court’s opinion took a generally dim view of what it characterized as DOR’s effort to “wiel[d] the power of jeopardy assessments as a sword to eliminate a socially undesirable activity .”
Garwood v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 939 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. T.C. 2010).
“Admittedly, Indiana Code § 6-8.1-5-3, on its face, provides no opportunity to contest jeopardy tax assessments; nevertheless, the Indiana Supreme Court has pronounced that taxpayers like the Garwoods may challenge jeopardy tax assessments pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-8.”
Ind. Code § 6-8.1-5-3(b): 1 case
Garwood v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 953 N.E.2d 682 (Ind. T.C. 2011).
“, the general jeopardy assessment statute, Indiana Code § 6-8.1-5-3, requires that specific exigent circumstances exist before a jeopardy assessment may be imposed: circumstances identifying the line between fair tax administra *687 tion and oppression.”
Ind. Code § 6-8.1-5-3(c): 4 cases
Garwood v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 953 N.E.2d 682 (Ind. T.C. 2011).
“, the general jeopardy assessment statute, Indiana Code § 6-8.1-5-3, requires that specific exigent circumstances exist before a jeopardy assessment may be imposed: circumstances identifying the line between fair tax administra *687 tion and oppression.”
Garwood v. Indiana Dep't of State Revenue, 939 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. T.C. 2010).
“Admittedly, Indiana Code § 6-8.1-5-3, on its face, provides no opportunity to contest jeopardy tax assessments; nevertheless, the Indiana Supreme Court has pronounced that taxpayers like the Garwoods may challenge jeopardy tax assessments pursuant to Indiana Code § 6-8.”
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.