Budget official: State was warned about tax collections

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Democratic member of the state's budget forecasting group believes the state could have discovered a massive budgeting problem two years ago, potentially avoiding deep cuts to education and other services.

Gov. Mitch Daniels announced last week that state workers discovered $320 million in corporate taxes which had sat untouched for four years.

But Erik Gonzalez, a Democratic member of the technical team that compiles estimates of the state's tax money, said his group raised concerns about the tax collections at a November 2009 meeting. The Department of Revenue could have avoided misplacing the money if it had acted then, he said.

"Either they didn't do their due diligence or they intentionally withheld information," Gonzalez said of the DOR.

State Budget Director Adam Horst said in an e-mail Wednesday that the 2009 meeting was called for by the DOR and had nothing to do with the electronic tax-collecting process at the heart of the $320 million mistake. Horst disputed Gonzalez's account, saying that the budget forecasters were more concerned with separate tax collections and whether a 2008 court ruling about MBNA bank would bring more money to the state.

"Certain members of the committee expressed concern that revenues in general were being underreported, but corporate taxes were not the focus," Horst wrote.

Gonzalez's statements came as he and other members of the Revenue Forecast Technical Committee presented their new budget estimates to state leaders Wednesday. The state is set to have $1.8 billion cash on hand at the end of the next budget, which would trigger Gov. Mitch Daniels' automatic tax refunds. But lawmakers have already said they may take a look at spending some of that money during the 2012 session that starts in January.

Much of the state's expected surplus comes from the misplaced $320 million and an annual increase of roughly $100 million stemming from the found money.

Democrats on the budget committee tried twice during Wednesday's meeting to get an independent audit of the DOR but failed both times on party-line votes of 3-2. Horst and the two other Republicans on the committee said they felt like the mistake had been identified but offered an audit from the State Board of Accounts as a compromise.

The panel voted unanimously to request the SBOA audit.

The SBOA conducts annual reviews of the department as part of the state's comprehensive annual financial review, but failed to find the $320 million error during its routine annual audits. The SBOA also conducts separate, "compliance audits" although its last audit of the DOR was published in February 2008 and it is unclear whether it would have found the missing money.

David Dukes, a Republican member on the forecasting committee with Gonzalez, said he noticed in 2009 that corporate tax collections were far off estimates. "We couldn't understand why the corporate revenues were going down," Dukes said.

But the DOR explanation for the apparent inaccuracies and volatility in the corporate tax collections during the down economy satisfied everyone at the November 2009 meeting that they did not need to look deeper into the problem, Dukes said. "Corporate's the toughest one to forecast," he said.

Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, raised questions about the November 2009 meeting at Wednesday's budget hearing and asked Roy Gabriel, DOR's information technology director, to check it out.

"I think it's a red herring," said State Budget Committee Chairman Jeff Espich, R-Uniondale. It would be impossible to go back and dissect every discussion and every assertion before the state eventually found the $320 million, he said.


Post a comment to this story

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.