APPEAL 00-1115
ADVERTISEMENT VIOLATIONS
SIGNED 3/8/01
BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX
COMMISSION
____________________________________
PETITIONER, )
) ORDER
Petitioner, )
) Appeal No. 00-1115
v. ) Account No. ######
)
MOTOR VEHICLE
ENFORCEMENT ) Tax Type:
Advertisement Violations
DIVISION OF THE UTAH
STATE )
TAX COMMISSION, ) Presiding: Davis
)
Respondent. )
_____________________________________
Presiding:
G. Blaine Davis,
Administrative Law Judge
Appearances:
For Petitioner: PETITIONER
For Respondent: Mr. Gale Francis, Assistant Attorney
General
Ms. Julie Thomas, from
the Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division
Mr. Tom Bohling, from
the Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division
STATEMENT
OF THE CASE
This matter came before
the Utah State Tax Commission for an Initial Hearing pursuant to the provisions
of Utah Code Ann. '59-1-502.5, on February
5, 2001.
Respondent proposed a
penalty upon Petitioner for misleading advertising, and Petitioner has appealed
the proposed fine.
In July, 2000,
Petitioner published an ad which included the serial number of the vehicle, the
amount down, the amount of the first payment, "plus tax, license and
fees". The ad also contained a
total out-of-pocket cost, the length of the financed contract, and the interest
rate as a stated A.P.R., and also said W.A.C., for "with approved
credit".
The position of
Respondent is that the ad was a violation of Utah Code Ann. '41-3-210 and Utah
Administrative Code Rule R877-23V-7 as a misleading advertisement because it
did not contain the total sales price, and a person would allegedly not know
the total price being paid for the vehicle.
APPLICABLE
LAW
Utah Code Ann. '41-3-210, provides in
relevant part, as follows:
(1) The
holder of any license issued under this chapter may not:
(a) intentionally
publish, display, or circulate any advertising that is misleading or inaccurate
in any material fact or that misrepresents any of the products sold,
manufactured, remanufactured, handled, or furnished by a licensee.
Utah Administrative Code
Rule R877-23V-7, provides in relevant part:
A.
Violation of any of the following standards of practice for the
advertising and selling of motor vehicles is a violation of Section 41-3-210.
1.
Accuracy. Any advertised
statements and offers about a vehicle as to year, make, model, type, condition,
equipment, price, trade-in-allowance, terms, and so forth, shall be clearly set
forth and based upon facts.
*
* * *
3. Price.
When the price of a vehicle is quoted, the vehicle shall be clearly
identified as to make, year, model and if new or used. In addition, the stated price must include
all charges that the customer must pay for the vehicle, including freight or
destination charges, dealer preparation, dealer handling, additional dealer
profit, document fees, and undercoating or rustproofing.
*
* * *
7.
Finance. The phrases, "no
finance charge", "no carrying charge", or similar expressions
may not be used when there is a charge for placing the transaction on a time
payment basis. Statements representing
or implying that no prospective credit purchaser will be rejected because of
inability to qualify for credit may not be used.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph (a)(1) of Rule
R877-23V-7 deals with the accuracy in advertising, and the substance of that
rule, as it relates to the ad in question says, "any advertised statements
. . . about a vehicle . . . price . . . shall be clearly set forth and based
upon facts." There is nothing in
that statement that requires the full purchase price to be set forth in any
advertisement, and there is no allegation that the facts which are set forth
are not accurate or based upon facts.
In reviewing Rule
R877-23V-7.a.3, the relevant parts of that provision state, "when the
price of a vehicle is quoted . . . . the stated price must include all charges
that the customer must pay for the vehicle, including freight or destination
charges, dealer preparation, dealer handling, additional dealer profit,
document fees, and undercoating or rustproofing." There is no allegation that the price which
is quoted does not contain all of the necessary inclusions, including freight,
dealer prep fees, document fees, or other necessary information. Again, that portion of the rule does not
require that the total price of the vehicle be stated in advertising.
In reference to Utah
Code Ann. '41-3-210, the statute
simply provides that advertising may not be "misleading or inaccurate in any
material fact. . . ." The division
does argue that the advertisement is misleading because a person cannot tell or
discern the total price which they would pay for a particular vehicle, but the
Commission finds that the advertisement sufficiently sets forth the down
payment, the monthly payment, and interest rate so that the ad is not
"misleading or inaccurate in any material fact."
DECISION
AND ORDER
Based upon the
foregoing, the Commission determines that the ad, Exhibit R-1, does not
constitute a violation of either Utah Code Ann. '41-3-210, or of Utah Administrative Rule
R877-23V-7. Accordingly, the fines and
penalties proposed to be imposed against Petitioner for the alleged violation
are not sustained, and are ordered removed from the records of Petitioner.
This decision does not
limit a party's right to a Formal Hearing.
However, this Decision and Order will become the Final Decision and
Order of the Commission unless any party to this case files a written request
within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision to proceed to a Formal
Hearing. Such a request shall be mailed
to the address listed below and must include the Petitioner's name, address,
and appeal number:
Utah
State Tax Commission
Appeals
Division
210
North 1950 West
Salt
Lake City, Utah 84134
Failure to request a
Formal Hearing will preclude any further appeal rights in this matter.
DATED this 8th day of March , 2001.
____________________________________
G. Blaine Davis
Administrative Law Judge
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX
COMMISSION.
The Commission has
reviewed this case and the undersigned concur in this decision.
DATED this 8th day of March
, 2001.
Pam Hendrickson R.
Bruce Johnson
Commission Chair Commissioner
Palmer DePaulis Marc
B. Johnson
Commissioner Commissioner