Shepard, S.J.
Appellant Michael W. Troyan has contended that the Department of Revenue was wrong to assess withholding tax against his limited liability company. A trial court denied his request for injunctive relief against the Department. On appeal, he contends this denial was an abuse of discretion. We remand with instructions to dismiss, inasmuch as exclusive jurisdiction rests with the Tax Court.
Issue
Troyan contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request for a temporary restraining order and permanent injunctive relief from unpaid tax assessments reduced to judgment. The dispositive issue on appeal, however, is whether the Marion Superior Court had jurisdiction over this matter in the first place.
….
Troyan and MT Management summarize their argument in terms of the trial court’s failure to recognize that Troyan had established all of the requisite elements to obtain injunctive relief. However, the relief sought as expressed in the appellants’ brief is resolution of the assessment and collection of a tax Troyan and MT Management claim is not owed.
The Department has responded to the merits of this position, but it has also argued here, as it did in the trial court, that under either scenario, it is the Indiana Tax Court and not the Marion Superior Court or this Court that has jurisdiction over such claims. The Department is correct, for reasons we set forth below.
The Indiana Code says rather directly: “The tax court has exclusive jurisdiction over any case that arises under the tax laws of Indiana and that is an initial appeal of a final determination made by: (1) the department of state revenue with respect to a listed tax . . .; or (2) the Indiana board of tax review.” Indiana Code § 33-26-3-1 (2004). In the act creating the Tax Court, the General Assembly reinforced this principle by repealing certain existing laws that directed appeals to general jurisdiction trial courts. See P.L. 291-1985 § 2, 1985 Ind. Acts 2282.
….
Here, Troyan and MT Management allege that the tax assessment is improper because the DOR is attempting to collect from them a tax obligation of another entity, “Mount Management.” This claim clearly involves the challenge to a collection of a tax or assessment, which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court. “Resort to a court of general jurisdiction to challenge a tax is precluded by this grant of exclusive jurisdiction.” State ex rel. Ind. Dep’t of Revenue v. Deaton, 755 N.E.2d 568, 571 (Ind. 2001).
To be sure, when an unpaid tax assessment is reduced to judgment, a circuit or superior court acquires jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the judgment, id., but Troyan and MT Management asked the Marion Superior Court for relief in excess of that limited power.
Conclusion
The trial court may well have been right as a matter of injunction law, but we remand this matter for dismissal on jurisdictional grounds.
Remanded with instructions.
Baker, J., and Crone, J., concur.