BEFORE THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH
_____________________________________
XXXXX
Petitioner, : INFORMAL DECISION
v. :
COLLECTION
DIVISION OF THE :
STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH, )
Respondent. : Appeal No. 87-0298
: Acct. No.
XXXXX
_____________________________________
STATEMENT OF CASE
An
Informal Hearing was held on XXXXX. XXXXX
represented himself. James E. Harward,
Hearing Officer, heard the matter for the Utah State Tax Commission. Petitioner requests a waiver of the penalty
and interest assessed against a deficiency in tax paid for the tax year XXXXX.
Petitioner testified that in XXXXX he was going through a divorce and that he
and his wife were still filing joint returns that year. Petitioner said that his wife paid the
federal tax obligation for XXXXX and that he thought she paid the state tax
obligation. Petitioner owed a total of
$$$$$ in XXXXX, and $$$$$ had been withheld during the year. Petitioner consequently owed a balance of
$$$$$ which apparently was never paid.
Petitioner testified that he first learned of the deficiency for the
XXXXX tax year in XXXXX. He said that
he received a notice on XXXXX, and that he paid the balance due on XXXXX. Petitioner believes that it is extremely
unfair for the Tax Commission not to have notified him that there was an
additional tax owing for just under five years while continuing to accrue
interest. Petitioner asserted that he
files and pays his tax obligations promptly.
This statement is borne out by Respondent's filing records which indicate
that after XXXXX, Petitioner has never filed nor paid his state tax obligation
late. Petitioner feels that the penalty
and interest on his XXXXX tax obligation exist because of Tax Commission
inaction and not as a result of his inaction.
Respondent's filing records show that on XXXXX, a notice of deficiency
was sent to Petitioner. The records do
not show whether the notice was sent to Petitioner or Petitioner's wife. The records also show that on XXXXX, a
warrant letter was sent and on XXXXX, a warrant was issued. On XXXXX, the Tax Commission received a
docket return on the warrant. A $$$$$
refund for the tax year XXXXX was applied to the XXXXX deficiency. Following the XXXXX refund application, no
action was taken on the XXXXX deficiency until XXXXX, when the Tax Commission
sent Petitioner another notice that there was a deficiency amount owing for
XXXXX. As Petitioner indicated,
Petitioner immediately paid the balance of the amount of the tax still owing
($$$$$). Utah Code Ann. 59-14A-86 (Supp. 1986) (new Section
59-10-536) entitled Limitations on Assessment and Collection, states that the
amount of tax imposed by the individual income tax act of XXXXX shall be
assessed within three years after the date the return was filed. The return was filed on XXXXX and the notice
of deficiency was issued on XXXXX.
Respondent timely made the assessment.
Respondent had three years after the assessment in which to file a
warrant. The assessment was made on
XXXXX. The warrant was filed on
XXXXX. Respondent timely filed the
warrant. Section 59-14A-79(e) (New Section 59-10-528(5)) provides that when a
warrant has been filed with the county clerk, the Tax Commission shall be
deemed to have obtained judgment against the taxpayer for the tax or other
amounts. Utah Code Ann. 78-12-22 provides for an eight year statute
of limitation for an action upon a judgment of any state within the United
States. Under tax law, the filing of
the warrant for taxes with the county clerk is deemed to be a judgment against
the taxpayer by the State. The Tax
Commission did not exceed its statutes of limitation for collecting the
tax. First, the Tax Commission, within
one year from the time the return was filed, filed a warrant with the county
clerk which has the effect of obtaining a judgment against Petitioner. Then,
within eight years of the time judgment was obtained against Petitioner, the
Tax Commission has attempted to collect on the judgment. The Commission declines to waive the penalty
or interest assessed against Petitioner.
However, interest is ordered to be abated as of XXXXX, the date Petitioner
paid the balance of the tax owing to the State of Utah.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based
on the foregoing, it is the Decision and Order of the Utah State Tax Commission
to deny Petitioner's Request. However,
Respondent is ordered to abate the interest accruing against Petitioner as of
XXXXX. Petitioner's filing history indicates that the amount of interest which
had accrued through XXXXX, would be $$$$$.
DATED
this 1 Day of October, 1987.
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