BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION
TAXPAYER SERVICES DIVISION, ) FINAL ORDER DENYING
UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION ) PETITIONER'S REQUEST
) FOR REVOCATION
v. ) Appeal No. 02-0404
) Account No. #####
RESPONDENT ) Tax Type: Revocation
dba, COMPANY, )
) Judge: Phan
Bruce Johnson, Commissioner
Jane Phan, Administrative Law Judge
For Petitioner: Clark Snelson, Assistant Attorney General
Tom Smith, Supervisor
Jay Andreason, Tax Compliance Agent
For Respondent: RESPONDENT REP
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for a Formal Hearing on June 18, 2002.
Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the Tax Commission hereby makes its:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. This matter is before the Utah State Tax Commission due to the Request for Revocation of Sales Tax License, filed by Petitioner on March 12, 2002. Petitioner requests revocation of sales tax license number ##### pursuant to Utah Code Ann. '59-12-106(1) on the grounds that Respondent has failed to comply with the laws of the Utah Sales Tax Act.
2. As of the date of revocation request, Respondent owed $$$$$ in sales tax, penalties and interest for the periods from July 2000 through June 2001. Additional amounts were owed for subsequent quarters for which Respondent had not yet filed returns. However, prior to the Formal Hearing, Respondent had filed all returns and paid $$$$$ in sales tax payments leaving a balance as of the hearing date of $$$$$.
3. Petitioner filed the request for revocation on the basis that the account was delinquent and based on Respondent's collection history. It was Petitioner's testimony that Respondent had a long history of not filing returns and make payments timely and Respondent had a tendency not to make payments until collection actions had been initiated.
4. Respondent asked for an additional week to pay the deficiency in full. He pointed out that he had probably at this point paid an amount equal to the sales tax and it was just penalty and interest which he had yet to pay. Petitioner had converted Respondent to a monthly filer prior to the Formal Hearing which would help him stay current with the sales tax.
5. Following the Formal Hearing, Respondent paid the balance of the deficiency, making a payment of $$$$$, plus filed and paid the May 2002 period. As of July 9, 2002, the sales tax deficiency had been paid in full and, in fact, Respondent's account had a small credit balance.
The commission shall, on a reasonable notice and after a hearing, revoke the license of any person violating any provision of this chapter and no license may be issued to such person until the taxpayer has complied with the requirements of this chapter. Any person required by this chapter to collect sales or use tax within this state without having secured a license to do so, is guilty of a criminal violation as provided in Section 59-1-401. (Utah Code Ann. '59-12-106(1).)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Respondent has substantially complied with the provisions of the Sales and Use Tax Act and the Commission finds no basis for revocation of its sales tax license at this time.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, the Tax Commission denies Petitioner's request to revoke Respondent's sales tax license. If the account does become delinquent at a future date, Petitioner may, at that time, file a new request for revocation. It is so ordered.
DATED this 5th day of August , 2002.
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 5th day of August , 2002.
Pam Hendrickson R. Bruce Johnson
Commission Chair Commissioner
Palmer DePaulis Marc B. Johnson