: Initial Hearing Decision and Order
: Appeal No. 02-1328
: Acct. No. #####
Respondent. : License Revocation
For Petitioner: RESPONDENT REP, business owner
For Respondent: Clark Snelson, Assistant Attorney General, and Angela Simmons, Taxpayer Services Division
This matter is before the Commission on Petitionerís request for the revocation of the Respondentís sales tax license. A revocation hearing was held October 8, 2002.
RESPONDENT ďRESPONDENTĒ is a retail womenís clothing outlet with stores in the MALL 1 and the MALL 2. It is currently operating under a sales tax license obtained in January of 2001. The owners and operators of the business have collected sales tax while operating under that license, but have not paid over the sales tax to the Tax Commission as required by law. The Commission has filed liens and, on occasion, tapped the RESPONDENTíS tills. Only after notice of this revocation action did the owners file sales tax returns. The declared amount of unpaid sales tax due and owing on this account is approximately $$$$$, plus interest and penalty.
Petitioner states that the prior owners of this business also collected sales tax, but neglected to pay it over to the Tax Commission. The amount due on that account, approximately $$$$$, was eventually discharged in bankruptcy proceedings. The previous owners then entered an arrangement with the current owner and reopened the stores. The previous owners retained a part interest in the current operation. Petitioner also stated, and Respondent admitted, that RESPONDENTíS withholding account is also in arrears, and she has not paid personal income tax on amounts taxable in Utah. On the basis of this history of noncompliance, Petitioner asks the Commission to approve revocation of the sales tax license.
In her own defense, Respondent stated that her rents in the malls where her stores are located is steep, but offered no viable excuse for her failure to pay over amounts of sales tax collected. Nevertheless, she stated that she wants to get into compliance and she asked for more time to clear up her account.
The Commissionís primary goal is to help taxpayers like Respondent to get back on track. However, given that Respondent has made no effort to date toward resolving this matter, her expression of cooperation at this point seems a little disingenuous. At the hearing, Respondent was instructed that the appeals processes and time frames leave her with a narrow window of opportunity to make a good faith effort to resolve the balance due on her account before the revocation action becomes final. In the meantime, the Commission approves revocation of Respondentís sales tax license pursuant to section 59-12-106 of the Utah Code.