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