87-0157 - Sales

 

BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH

_____________________________________

XXXXX

            Petitioner,                                                         :

                                                                                    :           FINDINGS OF FACT,

v.                                                                                 :           CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,

                                                                                    :           AND FINAL DECISION

AUDITING DIVISION OF THE                                :

            UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION,            :           Appeal No. 87-0157

            Respondent.                                                     :

_____________________________________

STATEMENT OF CASE

            This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for a formal hearing on the XXXXX.  James E. Harward and Commissioner Joe B. Pacheco heard the matter for and in behalf of the Tax Commission.  XXXXX was present.  XXXXX was present, representing the Respondent.

            Based upon the evidence and arguments presented at the hearing, the Tax Commission makes its findings of fact.

FINDINGS OF FACT

            1. Petitioner purchased a XXXXX automobile XXXXX from XXXXX.

            2. Part of the transaction involved the payment of sales tax in the sum of $$$$$.  Said sum was paid at the time of purchase.

            3. Petitioner experienced many and continuing problems with the vehicle and ultimately sought help from the XXXXX for arbitrating a settlement of the matter with XXXXX, the maker of the automobile.

            4. In the agreement to arbitrate, dated XXXXX, the Petitioner sought a "refund of the full purchase price of the XXXXX (excluding sales tax, licensing, insurance, and financing fees. . .."

            5. The arbitration resulted in a settlement of payment to the Petitioner of $$$$$, which sum represented the purchase price of the automobile exclusive of tax, insurance, licensing, and financing fees.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

            The Tax Commission Rule 20S provides for an adjustment or credit to be allowed for returned goods.

DECISION AND ORDER

            Implicit in the Rule 20S is that the goods must be returned to the retailer from which they were purchased.  The Respondent in this matter argues that since the automobile was not returned to XXXXX that the Petitioner is not entitled to a refund of the sales tax.  The Tax Commission finds this argument in this case unpersuasive.  Where the Petitioner has arbitrated a settlement with XXXXX and returned the automobile and received a refund of the amount of the purchase price, then the Petitioner is entitled to a refund of the sales tax paid even though the automobile was simply returned to another XXXXX dealership and not the specific dealership from which it was purchased.  Therefore, it is ordered that a refund of the sales tax in this case be granted.  To facilitate this order, and because XXXXX is no longer in business, XXXXX through its business manager XXXXX, has graciously agreed to cooperate by issuing a check to Petitioner for $$$$$.  XXXXX will then take a credit on its next quarterly sales tax return for said refund.

            DATED this 26 day of July, 1988.

BY ORDER OF THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH.

R. H. Hansen                                                                Roger O. Tew

Chairman                                                                      Commissioner

Joe B. Pacheco                                                            G. Blaine Davis

Commissioner   Commissioner