BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX
COMMISSION
_____________________________________
XXXXX
:
Petitioner, : FINDINGS OF FACT
: CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW,
v. : AND FINAL DECISION
:
AUDITING
DIVISION OF THE : Appeal No. 89-1024
UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION :
: Account
No. XXXXX
Respondent. :
_____________________________________
STATEMENT OF CASE
This
matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for a formal hearing on
XXXXX. Joseph G. Linford, Presiding
Officer, heard the matter for and on behalf of the Commission. Present and representing the Petitioner was
XXXXX, CPA, and XXXXX. Present and
representing the Respondent was XXXXX, Assistant Attorney General, and XXXXX of
the Auditing Division of the Utah State Tax Commission.
Based
upon the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the Tax Commission
hereby makes its:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The tax in question is special fuels tax.
2. The period in question is XXXXX through
XXXXX.
3. The owner and operator of the Petitioner
store, XXXXX, is an immigrant to the United States whose skills in the English
language are limited.
4. In
XXXXX, Mr. XXXXX visited the offices of the Tax Commission to obtain a sales
tax number and was told then that sales tax would apply only to the merchandise
that he sold and not gasoline which he would also sell. Apparently, the
specific subject of special fuels did not surface at this time. The evidence indicates that there was some
confusion on the part of Mr. XXXXX as to what was required of him and some
confusion, probably on the part of Tax Commission personnel, in understanding
Mr. XXXXX and in communicating to him what was expected under the law. This confusion, undoubtedly, is what has
given rise to the problem which this case addresses. Mr. XXXXX was under the erroneous impression that Petitioner
would not be required to collect the special fuels tax. Mr. XXXXX bases this upon his conversation
with Tax Commission personnel. Mr.
XXXXX apparently construed the Tax Commission employee's instructions to mean
that he did not have to collect the special fuels tax.
5. Petitioner's application for a sales and use
tax license does indicate that Petitioner would sell special fuels.
6. Petitioner first learned that it was
required to collect the special fuels tax in XXXXX, when Tax Commission
personnel contacted Petitioner and informed Petitioner that no special fuels
tax license had been issued for Petitioner's sales of diesel fuel. On the next working day Mr. XXXXX came into
Tax Commission offices, and applied for and obtained a special fuels tax
license and number.
7.
Based upon these facts, Petitioner contends that the assessment of the
special fuels tax which was not collected for a 13-month period is an illegal
assessment because notice was never given Petitioner that it would be required
to collect this tax. Petitioner is
therefore contending that Petitioner should not be liable for the tax in
question, nor for the interest assessed upon that tax. No penalty was assessed under the
circumstances of this case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Utah Code Ann. §§59-13-301 and59-13-302
provide that a special fuels tax shall be imposed on the sale of special fuels
and that a license is required for a business that is selling such special
fuels.
2. Utah Code Ann. §59-1-402 provides that
interest shall be assessed upon the late payment of taxes.
3. The law provides no basis for the granting
of Petitioner's request in this case.
The special fuels in question were sold by Petitioner and no tax was
collected on those sales. The State is
entitled to those tax revenues regardless of Petitioner's understanding of
whether or not such taxes were to be collected by Petitioner. The contention of Petitioner that there was
no notice as to Petitioner's liability for this tax is insufficient because the
evidence shows that there was ample confusion on Mr. XXXXX's part as to exactly
what was required and notice may indeed have been given him and he may not have
understood it. Even if such notice were
not given him, the Tax Commission is not required to notify every single
taxpayer of every single tax that may be imposed because of the unreasonable
burden this would impose upon the Tax Commission. Each taxpayer is presumed to be cognizant of the law as it
relates to that taxpayer's circumstances.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based
upon the foregoing, it is the decision and order of the Utah State Tax
Commission that Petitioner's request be denied.
DATED
this 8th day of August, 1990.
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.
R. H. Hansen Roger
O. Tew
Chairman Commissioner
Joe B.
Pacheco G.
Blaine Davis
Commissioner Commissioner