BEFORE THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH
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
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 $$$$$. The balance due pursuant to the XXXXX accounting amounted to $$$$$.
Respondent stated that when payments are received they go to pay the oldest returns first unless attached to a specific return or unless the taxpayer specifically instructs that the payment be applied to a certain quarter. Respondent stated that the second accounting was done at the Petitioner's request.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The difference between the two accountings is due to the application of overpayments for certain quarters. Overpayments had resulted from the payment of nonfiling estimates for certain quarters and the later filing of returns for these periods. Petitioner apparently did not realize until after these returns were filed that an overpayment existed and did not request at the time of the filing that the overpayments be applied to other periods in which the returns had not been filed. Some time later Petitioner discovered the overpayments and requested that they be applied to periods in which the returns had not been filed. The Harward accounting applied the overpayments pursuant to Petitioner's request.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Tax Commission policy does not permit the application of overpayments for certain periods as prepayments for other periods in which the returns have not yet been filed unless the taxpayer specifically identifies those overpayments and requests their application to the other periods at the time the returns are filed for the periods which were overpaid.
The Coleman accounting is the correct accounting. It applied payments pursuant to Tax Commission policy. Nevertheless, Petitioner is entitled to rely upon the Harward accounting.
Based on the foregoing, it is the Decision and Order of the Utah State Tax Commission that the Harward accounting be applied in determining the balance due by Petitioner for the periods of delinquency. The balance due as of the date of the hearing is $$$$$.
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
Joe B. Pacheco G. Blaine Davis