IBJNews

Audit of $526M in state tax errors could take months

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

It could be months before there are definitive answers on how Indiana lost track of a total of $526 million in taxes, with questions possibly pending well past the November election.

Representatives of the international account firm Deloitte told members of the state budget committee Wednesday they are still developing a plan for what would be audited, saying it could take through the end of August to complete the task.

Gov. Mitch Daniels announced last December that the state lost track of $320 million in corporate tax collections from 2007-2011. And in April, State Budget Director Adam Horst said Indiana owed $206 million to its counties. Three top Indiana revenue officials resigned following the revelations.

The broad strokes of the problem — in both cases, state workers did not properly enter changes in the state's tax collection system — are well-known following an internal review led by Horst. But specifics, such as why the $320 million mistake was not discovered for four years, are still unanswered.

Bari Faudree and Kathi Schwerdtfeger told lawmakers Wednesday that they have been working with other Deloitte auditors over the last few weeks to determine what should be reviewed. Once the assessment is completed, Schwerdtfeger said Deloitte will deliver a "detailed audit plan."

"This is not simply an audit issue, this is not simply an accounting issue, this is hitting a whole variety of other areas," Faudree said of Deloitte's preliminary work.

Asked by Budget Committee Chairman Jeff Espich if she expected the state to adopt their recommendations, Schwerdtfeger said "absolutely."

She said the audit could take "months" after the plan is approved by the panel, but said it was hard to give a specific timeline.

The timing of the audit has already factored into the governor's race. Democratic candidate John Gregg has asked for an expedited audit, while his running mate, state Senate Democratic Leader Vi Simpson, has said the focus on the revenue department is too narrow.

It's unlikely the audit results will be available before the Nov. 6 general election.

While Democrats called repeatedly for an independent audit after the first mistake was discovered in December, it was not until the second mistake was discovered that Republicans signed off on the idea.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).

ADVERTISEMENT