BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX
COMMISSION
_____________________________________
XXXXX
Petitioner, : FINDINGS OF FACT,
v. : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
: AND FINAL
DECISION
AUDIT DIVISION
OF THE :
STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH, ) Appeal No. 87-0897
Respondent. :
_____________________________________
This
matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for a formal hearing on the
XXXXX. James E. Harward, Hearing
Officer, heard the matter for and on behalf of the Tax Commission. XXXXX appeared representing the
Petitioner. XXXXX appeared representing
the Respondent. The Hearing Officer
took evidence and argument. The Tax Commission, after reviewing that evidence
and arguments and the recommendations of the Hearing Officer, makes its:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
The tax in question is sales tax.
2.
The period in question is XXXXX.
3.
The Petitioner purchased a XXXXX.
4.
The Petitioner did not pay sales tax upon the purchase of the aircraft.
5.
The Petitioner is a company qualified to do business in the State of Utah which
certificate was issued on the XXXXX and is presently in good standing.
6.
The Petitioner purchased the aircraft from XXXXX for the sum of $$$$$ with a
trade in of $$$$$ for a XXXXX.
7.
The Petitioner affirmed on at least two occasions, once on XXXXX and once on
XXXXX that the aircraft was purchased from XXXXX.
8.
The Petitioner used the aircraft in XXXXX among other places. The sale was consummated between two Utah
entities, XXXXX and the Petitioner.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
Utah Code Ann.59-12-103 levies a tax on the purchaser for amount paid or
charged for retail sales of tangible personal property made within the state.
2.
Utah Code Ann.59-12-104 sets forth certain exemptions to the sales tax imposed
by 59-12-103. However, no exemption
exists for a sale between two Utah entities.
Regulation RH65-12u defines storage as including storing, keeping,
retention of or exercise of dominion, or control over tangible personal
property within Utah.
DECISION AND ORDER
The
Tax Commission after reviewing the facts and evidence presented at the hearing
finds that the assertions of the Petitioner are self-serving and given little
weight. All of the written
documentation indicates that the purchase of the aircraft was done from XXXXX,
a Utah Company, by the Petitioner, a Utah entity. This in and of itself is sufficient for the imposition of a sales
tax in this matter pursuant to regulation R865-12u and Utah Code
Ann.59-12-103. In addition, no
exemption is set out in Utah Code Ann.59-12-104 which would exempt this
transaction from tax. The Petitioners argument
that since it was never brought back into the state except for its 100 hour
service until XXXXX is without merit.
The rule sets forth that any exercise of dominion or control over the
tangible personal property within the state is sufficient grounds for the
imposition of the tax. Clearly the
Petitioner exercised control over the aircraft in that it owned it, directed
its movements and its whereabouts.
Therefore, sufficient nexus has been met and grounds exist for the
imposition of the tax. Therefore
Petitioner's request is denied and the assessment is affirmed.
DATED
this 22 day of June, 1989.
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.
R. H. Hansen Roger
O. Tew
Chairman Commissioner
Joe B.
Pacheco G.
Blaine Davis
Commissioner Commissioner