BEFORE THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH
_____________________________
XXXXX
Petitioner, : FINDINGS OF FACT,
: CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW
v. : AND FINAL DECISION
COLLECTION
DIVISION OF THE : Appeal No. 87-0962
STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH, ) Acct. No. XXXXX
Respondent. :
____________________________
STATEMENT OF CASE
This
is an appeal to a formal hearing from an informal decision of the Utah State
Tax Commission, rendered on XXXXX, which decision denied Petitioner's request
for waiver of penalty and interest on withholding tax account No. XXXXX for the
period XXXXX. A formal hearing on the
above-captioned matter was held on XXXXX in the offices of the Utah State Tax
Commission. David J. Angerhofer,
Hearing Officer, heard the matter for the Tax Commission. XXXXX represented the Petitioner. XXXXX represented the Respondent.
Petitioner
stated that the Tax Commission has not correctly applied his payments to the periods
of delinquency in question. Petitioner
first worked with XXXXX and then with XXXXX.
Petitioner presented a spreadsheet comparing the application of payments
by XXXXX (XXXXX accounting) and the application of payments by XXXXX (XXXXX
accounting). This spreadsheet indicates
that the balance due pursuant to the XXXXX accounting amounted to $$$$$. The balance due pursuant to the XXXXX
accounting amounted to $$$$$.
Respondent stated that when payments are
received they go to pay the oldest returns first unless attached to a specific
return or unless the taxpayer specifically instructs that the payment be
applied to a certain quarter.
Respondent stated that the second accounting was done at the
Petitioner's request.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The
difference between the two accountings is due to the application of
overpayments for certain quarters.
Overpayments had resulted from the payment of nonfiling estimates for
certain quarters and the later filing of returns for these periods. Petitioner apparently did not realize until
after these returns were filed that an overpayment existed and did not request
at the time of the filing that the overpayments be applied to other periods in
which the returns had not been filed.
Some time later Petitioner discovered the overpayments and requested
that they be applied to periods in which the returns had not been filed. The Harward accounting applied the
overpayments pursuant to Petitioner's request.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Tax
Commission policy does not permit the application of overpayments for certain
periods as prepayments for other periods in which the returns have not yet been
filed unless the taxpayer specifically identifies those overpayments and
requests their application to the other periods at the time the returns are
filed for the periods which were overpaid.
The
Coleman accounting is the correct accounting.
It applied payments pursuant to Tax Commission policy. Nevertheless, Petitioner is entitled to rely
upon the Harward accounting.
FINAL DECISION
Based
on the foregoing, it is the Decision and Order of the Utah State Tax Commission
that the Harward accounting be applied in determining the balance due by
Petitioner for the periods of delinquency.
The balance due as of the date of the hearing is $$$$$.
The
Collection Division is hereby ordered to adjust this record in accordance with
this decision.
DATED
this 19 day of April of 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