BEFORE THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH
_____________________________________
XXXXX,
Petitioner, :
v. : INFORMAL DECISION
:
AUDITING DIVISION
OF THE : Appeal No. 86 1705
STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH, )
Respondent. :
_____________________________________
STATEMENT OF CASE
This
is an appeal to the Utah State Tax Commission from a decision of the Auditing
Division of the Utah State Tax Commission (Respondent) to assess tax, penalty,
and interest on the purchase of a XXXXX by Petitioner. An Informal Hearing was held on XXXXX, in
the offices of the Utah State Tax Commission.
David J. Angerhofer, Hearing Officer, heard the matter for the Commission. XXXXX and XXXXX represented themselves. XXXXX and XXXXX represented the Respondent.
Petitioner
stated that he was offered a position in XXXXX, with the understanding that it
was a ninety day trial period.
Petitioner moved to Utah on XXXXX, to begin the job and did not know if
he would remain. Petitioner stated that
he did not think he was a resident until the ninety days had passed. Petitioner's wife frequently traveled back
and forth between Utah and Montana to try to sell their Montana home. On XXXXX, Petitioner purchased the XXXXX for
$$$$$ from XXXXX. XXXXX signed a
nonresident affidavit while XXXXX signed other documents at the time of
purchase.
Respondent
assessed a sales tax of $$$$$, a 100% fraud penalty of $$$$$, and associated interest.
FINDINGS
Utah
sales tax was properly assessed on the purchase of the vehicle. Petitioner
qualified as a resident at the time of purchase pursuant to Motor Vehicle
Registration Rule A12-05-1.
Interest
was properly assessed in this matter because the Utah State Tax Commission was
denied the use of the money during the period in question.
There
is not clear and convincing evidence of fraud in this matter; therefore, the
100% fraud penalty is not appropriate.
However, Utah Code Ann. §59-15-8
(1953) authorizes a 10% penalty for "negligence or intentional disregard
of authorized rules and regulations with knowledge thereof, but without intent
to defraud...."
DECISION AND ORDER
It
is the Decision and Order of the Utah State Tax Commission that Respondent
properly assessed the tax and associated interest in this matter.
The Tax Commission hereby abates the 100%
fraud penalty and imposes a 10% negligence penalty in its stead.
The
Auditing Division is directed to adjust its books in accordance with this
decision.
DATED
this 20 day of March, 1987.
BY ORDER OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH.