BEFORE THE STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH
_____________________________________
XXXXX ) INFORMAL DECISION
Petitioner, :
v. : Appeal No. 87-0977
AUDITING
DIVISION OF THE :
STATE TAX
COMMISSION OF UTAH )
Respondent. :
_____________________________________
STATEMENT OF CASE
This
matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for an Informal Hearing on
XXXXX. James E. Harward, Hearing
Officer, heard the matter for the Tax Commission. XXXXX appeared representing the Petitioner. XXXXX appeared representing the Respondent.
On
XXXXX, XXXXX purchased a XXXXX automobile from the Petitioner, XXXXX. XXXXX are residents of the XXXXX and
employed by XXXXX to work at the XXXXX.
The car was purchased in Utah and financed through a Utah bank, XXXXX.
XXXXX flies in for a week at a time every couple of months in conjunction with
his work at the XXXXX.
Respondent
argued that since the purchaser of the automobile was employed by a Utah
Company, then the Petitioner should have known that the transaction was subject
to sales tax and, therefore, the dealership, i.e., the Petitioner is
responsible.
DECISION AND ORDER
The
Tax Commission notes that the XXXXX executed an out of state nonresident
affidavit upon which the Petitioner relied in not collecting sales tax. It appears that the only connection that the
purchasers have with the State of Utah is that the purchasers are employed by
XXXXX at the XXXXX. In conjunction with
that, the Petitioner, XXXXX spends several weeks a year at the XXXXX in Utah. The purchasers do not live in Utah and they do not reside in Utah.
The
Respondent would like the Commission to affirm the tax, penalty, and interest
in this matter based solely on the fact that the employer of the purchasers was
a Utah Corporation, and the purchasers spend several weeks a year in Utah in
conjunction with his employment at the XXXXX by the Utah Corporation. The Commission declines to affirm the
assessment on this basis. It was
alluded to during the course of the hearing that the automobile is located in
the State of Utah and has never been taken to the XXXXX. This allegation would go toward the
purchasers, XXXXX, and not to the sellers of the vehicle, the Petitioners in
this case. Therefore, the Commission
has given little weight to the evidence regarding the existence of the vehicle
in Utah after the purchase.
After
reviewing all of the evidence, the Commission feels that the Petitioner was
proper in all of its dealing in obtaining the nonresident affidavit and,
therefore, declines to affirm the deficiency assessment. However, the
Commission feels that there is some proof that a deficiency assessment should
be made against the purchasers, XXXXX if the vehicle has been kept in the State
of Utah and used in the State of Utah.
Therefore, the Respondent is encouraged
to proceed against the purchasers, XXXXX.
DATED
this 20 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