90-2655 - Sales




In Re: )





: Appeal No. 90-2655

: Account No. XXXXX



This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for a formal hearing upon an Order to Show Cause on XXXXX. Lisa L. Olpin, Presiding Officer, heard the matter for and on behalf of the Commission. Present and representing the Petitioner was XXXXX, an attorney. Present and representing the Respondent was XXXXX, Assistant Utah Attorney General.

Based upon the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the Tax Commission hereby makes its:


1. The tax in question is sales and use tax. Petitioner is requesting a waiver of interest assessed on a tax delinquency for the audit period of XXXXX.

2. Petitioner filed a Petition for Redetermination on the assessment and the interest charged thereon.

3. At the hearing held in XXXXX on the merits of the Petition for Redetermination, Petitioner addressed the question of whether or not the sales tax assessment was just; there was no mention of the interest.

4. In the final decision in this matter, the Tax Commission upheld the sales and use tax assessment. This written decision, however, was silent on the issue of interest.

5. As a result of the wording of the final decision, XXXXX, executive vice-president and chief operating officer at XXXXX, testified that he assumed that the interest had been waived.

6. Petitioner then filed a Petition for Reconsideration on the sales tax question in XXXXX which was denied in XXXXX.

7. Petitioner is requesting that the interest amount be waived because the final decision dated XXXXX orders Petitioner to pay sales tax only. Further, Petitioner feels that it should not be required to pay interest when it had a good faith belief that it was not required to collect the sales tax at issue. And lastly, XXXXX explained that XXXXX was sold in XXXXX, leaving any remaining tax liability on himself and other obligated individuals.

8. Respondent argues that Petitioner is barred from appealing the interest assessment at this time because it already appealed once before in its first Petition for Redetermination. The Auditing Division contends that the Commission effectively affirmed the interest assessment when it upheld the Auditing Division's sales tax determination in the final order.


The Commission agrees with Respondent in determining that the Commission's final decision upholding the sales tax implicitly includes the interest assessment. If Petitioner was unsure of this, it should have addressed the matter in its Petition for Reconsideration or to the Commission directly in the interim. It is so ordered.

DATED this _____ day of ____________, 1993.


W. Val Oveson Roger O. Tew

Chairman Commissioner

Joe B. Pacheco Alice Shearer

Commissioner Commissioner