86-0171 - Corporation Franchise

BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH

_____________________________________

XXXXX

                                                                                    :

            Petitioner,                                                         )

                                                                                    :

v.                                                                                 )           INFORMAL DECISION

                                                                                    :

                                                                                    )

AUDITING DIVISION OF THE                                :           Appeal No. 86 0171

STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH,                  )           Acct. No. XXXXX

                                                                                    :

            Respondent.                                                     )

_____________________________________

STATEMENT OF CASE

            This matter came before the Tax Commission for an Informal Hearing on XXXXX.  James E. Harward, Hearing Officer, heard the matter for the Tax Commission.  The Petitioner was represented by XXXXX and XXXXX.  The Auditing Division of the Utah State Tax Commission, Respondent was represented by XXXXX and XXXXX.

            The Auditing Division of the Utah State Tax Commission conducted an audit of the Petitioner for the period XXXXX through XXXXX.  Prior to that audit period, another audit had been conducted in approximately XXXXX.  At the conclusion of the earlier audit, it was determined that the Petitioner should report using the three factor formula method.  The Petitioner complied with that requirement and reported its income based on the three factor formula.  At the conclusion of the audit for the XXXXX through XXXXX period, it was determined that the Petitioner should be reporting on a combined method rather than on a three factor formula method.

            The Petitioner, rather than argue the matter, determined that it would be better to settle the issue and paid the tax, but requested a waiver of the interest.

            The Petitioner argued that the audit adjustment was a result of a change in policy without any notification or change in statutory provisions of the Utah Code.  In fact, the Petitioners were simply following the advise and requirements of the previous audit by the Tax Commission.

            After the hearing, XXXXX and XXXXX, representatives of the Audit Division, by memo, recommended that the Commission waive the full interest in the amount of $$$$$.  The basis for the recommendation was that (1) the Tax Commission did not publish its intent to audit or allow combination reporting, (2) the company had filed all years based upon the determination for the audit years XXXXX and XXXXX, (3) there are grey areas in relation to the audit, (4) the company could possibly file claim for a refund protesting the entire audit, and (5) the full amount of the deficiency plus $$$$$ in interest had been paid, and since the audit, the company has filed on a combined basis.

DECISION AND ORDER

            It is the Decision and Order of the Utah State Tax Commission that the interest in the sum of $$$$$ be waived.

            DATED this 3 day of September 1986.

BY ORDER OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH.

R. H. Hansen                                                                Roger O. Tew

Chairman                                                                      Commissioner

Joe B. Pacheco

Commissioner