Indiana Dept. of Revenue v. Trump Indiana, Inc. (9/21/04 IndSCt) [Tax; Statutory Construction]
Boehm, Justice
The Indiana Tax Court held that a boat assembled in Florida and transferred to Indiana for use as a casino riverboat is not personal property and therefore not subject to sales and use taxation in Indiana. We hold that a boat delivered to Indiana is taxable as “tangible personal property” for purposes of the Indiana sales and use tax, even though it is also subject to property tax as real property once it is in place as a casino riverboat. * * *For the reasons already given, we think the property tax definitions are inappropriate to interpretation of the sales and use tax provisions. When the Indiana General Assembly chooses a word without defining it, the court “must examine the statute as a whole and attribute the common and ordinary meaning to the undefined word, unless doing so would deprive the statute of its purpose or effect.” Consolidation Coal Co. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 583 N.E.2d 1199, 1201 (Ind. 1991) (citations omitted). Indeed, the statutes direct us that “words and phrases shall be taken in their plain, or ordinary and usual, sense.” I.C. § 1-1-4-1 (1998). See also Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue v. Hardware Wholesalers, 622 N.E.2d 930, 932-33 (Ind. 1993); Cf. UACC Midwest, Inc. v. Ind. Dep’t of State Revenue, 667 N.E.2d 232, 237 (Ind. Tax Ct. 1996). Because the General Assembly did not define “tangible personal property” for purposes of the sales and use tax, we apply the ordinary meaning of the phrase. Black’s Law Dictionary defines personal property as “any movable or intangible thing that is subject to ownership and not classified as real property.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1254 (8th ed. 2004). By this rather ordinary definition, a casino riverboat, like any other boat, is “tangible personal property.” As such, its purchase rendered it subject to use tax.
Conclusion. The decision of the Tax Court is reversed.
Shepard, C.J. and Dickson, Sullivan and Rucker, JJ., concur.
Case Summary. Richard D. Kruse, guarantor of indebtedness arising from a loan from National Bank of Indianapolis (“NBI” or “Lender” or “the Bank”) to SignTec, LLC (“SignTec” or “Borrower” or “the Company”), appeals, arguing that genuine issues of material fact should have precluded the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of NBI. We find that because Kruse signed an “absolute, unconditional and continuing” Guaranty providing for “unlimited” liability and the waiver of various defenses—including claims that the Bank extended the loan’s maturity date without Kruse’s consent and failed to notify Kruse of Borrower’s noncompliance with the loan’s financial reporting requirements—Kruse’s unsubstantiated allegations as to the Bank’s alteration of and Borrower’s failure to comply with the underlying loan agreement will not discharge his liability. Moreover, we find that NBI’s conduct did not breach any existing fiduciary duty or implied duty of good faith. Given these conclusions, we affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of NBI and remand to the trial court with instructions to determine the amount of appellate attorneys’ fees to be added to NBI’s judgment. * * *Posted by Marcia Oddi at September 21, 2004 03:06 PMConclusion. We affirm the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of NBI, finding that Kruse has failed to show that there are any genuine issues of material fact affecting his guarantor liability. Given this finding, we need not reach the question of whether the trial court erred in striking Kruse’s original affidavit.
Additionally, we remand this case to the trial court with instructions to determine the amount of appellate attorneys’ fees to be added to NBI’s judgment. Affirmed.
SULLIVAN, J., and MAY, J., concur.