BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION
Petitioner, : FINDINGS OF FACT,
v. : CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
: AND FINAL DECISION
AUDIT DIVISION OF THE :
STATE TAX COMMISSION OF UTAH, ) Appeal No. 87-1567
: Audit Period XXXXX
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. The Petitioner was represented by XXXXX. The Respondent was represented by XXXXX. The Hearing Officer took evidence and arguments as it relates to the issues at hand. Based upon that evidence and arguments and the recommendation of the Presiding Officer, the Tax Commission 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, Serial Number XXXXX in XXXXX for $$$$$.
4. The Petitioner did not pay sales tax at the time of the purchase of the vehicle.
5. The Petitioner financed the vehicle through XXXXX. As evidence of that transaction, Exhibit 2 is a promissory note indicating that XXXXX, promises to pay XXXXX the amount of $$$$$.
6. The Tax Commission finds no persuasive evidence that the relationship between XXXXX and XXXXX was anything other than an outright finance of the purchase of the XXXXX. The letter dated XXXXX stating that the arrangement was a lease is unpersuasive in that there are no lease documents to substantiate that claim.
7. The vehicle in question was purchased personally by the Petitioner for use in his position as constable for XXXXX; however, when the Petitioners duties as constable are terminated the van is and continues to be the sole personal property of the Petitioner and is not the property of the precinct or any other subdivision of the State of Utah.
8. The van is paid for out of proceeds and earnings of the Petitioner.
9. The Petitioner is not a subdivision of the State of Utah.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Sales to the State or any of its subdivisions are exempt from taxation. (Utah Code Ann.59-12-104(2).)
2. Any purchases by a precinct are exempt from taxation. Utah State Constitution Article 11 Section 4.
3. All fees collected by the constable are his own personal property and is not the property of the precinct. (See Rich vs Industrial Commission 80 Utah 511, 513 15 Pacific Second 641 and 642.
DECISION AND ORDER
The Tax Commission after reviewing the facts and evidence finds that the purchase of the XXXXX by the Petitioner was not an exempt transaction under the statute. The purchase of the vehicle was personal and not for or on behalf of the precinct. In addition the Tax Commission finds that the purchase of the vehicle initially was in fact a purchase and not a lease. Insufficient evidence or documentation has been submitted to lead the Commission to believe that in fact the lease was in existence between XXXXX and the Petitioner. Finally, the Tax Commission finds no basis for the claim of estoppel on behalf of the Petitioner. The audit and assessment of this matter in XXXXX does not estop the collection of the tax in question. Therefore, the Petitioner's request is denied and the assessment of the Auditing Division is affirmed.
DATED this 15 day of May, 1989.
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.
R. H. Hansen Roger O. Tew
Joe B. Pacheco G. Blaine Davis