89-1267 - Sales

 

BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION

_____________________________________

In Re:                                                                           )

                                                                                    :           ORDER

XXXXX                                                                                  )

                                                                                    :           Appeal No. 89-1267

                                                                                    :

                                                                                    :           Account No. XXXXX

_____________________________________

STATEMENT OF CASE

            This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission upon a Petition for Reconsideration, dated XXXXX, filed by the Respondent as a result of the Commission's final decision, dated XXXXX.

            FINDINGS

            1. Utah Administrative Rule R861-1A-5(P) provides that a Petition for Reconsideration "will allege as grounds for reconsideration either a mistake in law or fact, or the discovery of new evidence."  Under this rule, the Tax Commission may exercise its discretion in granting or denying a Petition for Reconsideration.

            2. In its Petition for Reconsideration, the Respondent contends the Commission should have affirmed Respondent's initial determination that Petitioner was liable for sales tax, penalty and interest arising from Petitioner's purchase of an automobile during XXXXX.  In support of its position, the Respondent contends Petitioner was a resident of Utah at the time of the purchase.  In particular, Respondent relies upon the Commission's Administrative Rule R873-22M-1.B, (3), (4) and (6).  Subsection 3 provides that any person owning, leasing or renting a residence in Utah is considered a resident of Utah for sales tax purposes.  Subsection 4 provides that any person employed in Utah is subject to Utah sales tax.  Subsection 6 provides that any person declaring himself to be a resident of Utah for the purpose of gaining privileges such as a drivers license is also subject to Utah sales tax.

            3. With one exception, Respondent agrees that the findings of fact set forth in the Commission's prior decision are correct.  In summary, the Commission found that prior to XXXXX, the Petitioner resided in Utah.  In XXXXX he purchased a home in XXXXX, Wyoming.  In XXXXX, he separated from his wife and moved to XXXXX.  He then opened a bank account and obtained a Wyoming drivers license.  He has licensed the vehicle in question in Wyoming.

            The Petitioner is employed by XXXXX and based in XXXXX, Wyoming.  His employment records with XXXXX indicate he changed his home address from Utah to Wyoming effective XXXXX.  His employment as a XXXXX places him in Utah approximately 30% of his work time.  His XXXXX home was sold in XXXXX as part of his divorce settlement, which became final in XXXXX.

            4. The one finding in the Commissions decision which Respondent disputes concerns the Petitioners possession of a Utah drivers license at the time of the purchase in question.  However, the Petitioner testified during the hearing that he possessed a Wyoming license and had surrendered his Utah license.  The Petitioner has also provided subsequent written explanation on that point.

DECISION AND ORDER

            The Commission has reviewed the facts of this matter and its previous decision.  It has also reviewed the points raised in Respondents request for reconsideration.  After that review, the Commission concludes that its previous decision is correct.  The fact that Petitioner's employment in interstate transportation brings him into Utah does not mean he is employed in Utah, nor does the fact that he maintained an interest in a former residence in XXXXX render him a resident of Utah.  Finally, the Commission has determined the Petitioner had surrendered his Utah drivers license for a Wyoming license at the time of the transaction.

            The Commission has also reviewed its prior decisions, as identified by Respondent.  Those other decisions involve distinctly different fact situations, which serve as the basis for imposition of taxes in those cases. Because of the fact differences, they are inapplicable to this case.

            Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds no basis for reconsideration of its previous decision in this matter.

            The Commissions prior decision is affirmed and the Respondents Motion for Redetermination is denied.  It is so ordered.

            DATED this 20TH day of NOVEMBER, 1991.

BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.

R. H. Hansen                                                                Roger O. Tew

Chairman                                                                      Commissioner

Joe B. Pacheco                                                            S. Blaine Willes

Commissioner   Commissioner