BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH
v. ) DECISION
COLLECTION DIVISION OF THE : Appeal No. 86 0393
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH, ) Acct. No. XXXXX
STATEMENT OF CASE
An Informal Hearing was held by telephone conference call on XXXXX. James E. Harward, Hearing Officer, heard the matter for the Utah State Tax Commission. XXXXX, of XXXXX, represented the Petitioner. Petitioner testified that XXXXX, a Division of XXXXX, was incorporated on XXXXX. Petitioner had new filing requirements as a separate entity in Utah, but due to limited business activity in Utah and the fact that XXXXX sustained losses on the sale of individual parcels of land in Utah, it did not believe it would have a tax liability in Utah. However, because business income was apportioned to Utah, a tax liability was owed.
Petitioner paid the tax due on XXXXX, the date the tax would have been due had an extension been filed. Petitioner asserts that pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 15-13-27 (Supp. 1986), Petitioners failure to file an extension application was due to reasonable cause, and therefore, no penalty should be paid. Petitioner did indicate a willingness to pay the $$$$$ penalty provided for in Utah Code Ann. § 59-13-56 (Supp. 1986) pertaining to the imposition of a penalty when there is a failure to make a return within the time required by law.
1. Utah Code Ann. § 59-13-27 (Supp. 1986) provides for a 5% penalty for each month or part of month during which the taxpayer failed to make and file a return within the time prescribed by law, not to exceed 25% in the aggregate, except when a return is filed after the time prescribed by law and the failure to file on time was due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect.
2. Utah Code Ann. § 59-13-56 (Supp. 1986) provides for a civil penalty of $$$$$ where a person fails to make, render, sign or verify a return or to supply information within the time required by law without fraudulent intent.
3. Utah State Tax Commission finds that Petitioner's failure to file an application for an automatic extension of time in which to file Petitioner's corporate franchise tax return was due to negligence and not due to reasonable cause. Petitioners reasons for late filing would pertain to lack of knowledge on the part of the Petitioner that it was required under any circumstance to file a franchise tax return. However, Petitioner asserts these reasons as an excuse for not filing an application for an extension. If Petitioner knew it had a duty to file an application for extension, then it knew it had a duty to file a lax return. The Commission concedes that Petitioner's failure to timely file an application for time was due to inadvertence; however, this inadvertence does not constitute reasonable cause.
Based on the foregoing facts, it is the Decision and Order of the Utah State Tax Commission that Respondent's assessment of penalty and interest be sustained.
DATED this 12 day of November of 1986.
BY ORDER OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH.
R. H. Hansen Roger O. Tew
Joe B. Pacheco G. Blaine Davis