94-1542
Motor Vehicle
Signed 8/9/95
____________________________________
XXXXX, )
:
Petitioner, : ORDER
:
v. :
:
MOTOR VEHICLE
DIVISION OF THE : Appeal No. 94-1542
UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, :
:
:
Respondent. : Tax Type: Motor Vehicle
_____________________________________
STATEMENT OF CASE
This
matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for a Settlement Conference pursuant to the provisions of Utah Code
Ann. §59-1-502.5, on XXXXX. Jane Phan,
Administrative Law Judge, heard the matter for and on behalf of the
Commission. Present and representing
Petitioner was XXXXX. Present and
representing Respondent was XXXXX, together with XXXXX for the Motor Vehicle
Division, and XXXXX from the Motor
Vehicle Division.
Petitioner
was the owner of a XXXXX, vehicle identification number XXXXX. The subject vehicle was impounded on XXXXX
by the Utah Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division because the vehicle had no
registration, license plates or title.
In XXXXX XXXXX a public auction was held, following notice and
publication, and the vehicle sold to XXXXX for $$$$$ representing the amount of
the accumulated towing and storage costs incurred from the time of the
impound. XXXXX subsequently sold the
vehicle to a third party. Petitioner
obtained the vehicle from that third party and was negotiating to repurchase
the vehicle from the third party subject to the Tax Commission's decision on
this appeal.
Petitioner
requests that the Tax Commission cancel the sale of the vehicle to XXXXX and
return rightful and legal ownership of the vehicle to Petitioner because
Respondent failed to take reasonable steps to determine the owner of the
vehicle so that notice could be given to Petitioner of the impound and auction
sale.
At
the conference Petitioner stated that he had lived in XXXXX prior to XXXXX and
the vehicle in question was registered in the XXXXX. Petitioner asserted that Respondent is required to use
"reasonable" means to notify the owner of a vehicle prior to selling
it at an impound sale. Petitioner
stated that to determine ownership of the subject vehicle, Respondent contacted
XXXXX states by a computerized system, the National Law Enforcement Teletype
System (NLETS), which could determine by VIN number whether or not the vehicle
was registered in that state.
Respondent did not contact the XXXXX, which Petitioner felt would have
been reasonable since it was a XXXXX, while Respondent did check the XXXXX. Petitioner felt it was unreasonable to check
with XXXXX instead of XXXXX. Petitioner
felt that even though XXXXX was not on the NLETS computer system Respondent
should have contacted XXXXX by phone, mail or fax to obtain the owner of the
vehicle. Petitioner asserted that this
would not have been that difficult or costly.
In
support of this position Petitioner provided a copy of the title of the vehicle
that he had obtained from XXXXX in XXXXX XXXXX. Petitioner said it took just one phone call and the XXXXX
Department of Transportation was able to locate the title while he was on the
phone. They mailed a copy to Petitioner
within a few days of the call.
Further,
Petitioner stated that the letter of notice of impound which Respondent mailed
to the driver of the vehicle at the time it was impounded was addressed incorrectly. The vehicle had been XXXXX from Petitioner
and Petitioner did not know the driver at the time of the impound or represent
that the driver would have given Petitioner the notice. Petitioner felt that this error was another
indication of sloppy work on the part of the Respondent.
Petitioner
also provided copies of papers that were in the subject vehicle when it was
impounded. One was a note which
indicated XXXXX, which Petitioner stated should have shown a connection with
XXXXX. Another item was a bank
statement that had Petitioner's name with a XXXXX address of a friend of
Petitioner, who, according to Petitioner, would have forwarded any mail
received for Petitioner.
At
the conference Respondent's representatives stated that the Respondent complied
fully with the procedures required by law prior to selling the subject
vehicle. They stated that the governing
statue on determining ownership of a vehicle was Utah Code Ann. §41-1-116
(1989-1990)[i]1
which states that the ownership is to be established to the satisfaction of the
Respondent. Respondent's
representatives asserted that Respondent did establish the ownership of the
vehicle to its satisfaction prior to the sale.
Further, they argued that Respondent did use reasonable efforts to
determine the owner of the vehicle.
At
the conference Respondent's representatives described Respondent's efforts to
locate the owner of the subject vehicle.
One of Respondent's representatives stated that after the vehicle had been
impounded by the police, without license plates, title or registration, she
attempted to find the owner of the vehicle by checking the National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) service. Any
vehicle reported stolen anywhere in the United States would be listed on the
NCIC. She determined that the vehicle
had not been reported stolen. Respondent also checked XXXXX states for the
subject vehicle's VIN number.
Respondent's representative stated that she did not contact XXXXX
because at the time XXXXX did not have the ability to look up vehicles by VIN
number and did not have a centralized system.
In XXXXX Respondent would have had to call each county in XXXXX and even
then the counties probably could not have located the title of the vehicle
without the license plate number or name of owner.
Respondent
provided documents which indicated that it had followed all established
procedures prior to selling the vehicle at auction. Respondent's representative stated that it is not the
Respondent's policy to search the car for documents like bank statements or
notes which might indicate ownership.
Further,
Respondent's representatives stated that the
certificate of sale issued to XXXXX was statutory so it supersedes any
other prior title.
Lastly,
Respondent stated that had Petitioner reported the vehicle stolen at the time
of the theft, it would have been listed on the NCIC and Respondent would have
been able to determine that Petitioner was the owner of the vehicle. From the records provided, Petitioner reported
the vehicle stolen in XXXXX, nearly XXXXX after the XXXXX date of impound. Respondent asserted that Petitioner's
action, in not immediately reporting the vehicle as stolen, contributed to the
Respondent's inability to locate Petitioner as the owner of the vehicle.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based
upon the information presented at the conference, and the records of the Tax
Commission, the Commission finds Respondent made a reasonable effort and fully
complied with statutory requirements and established procedures prior to
selling the subject vehicle at auction.
Petitioner's failure to report the vehicle as stolen until nearly XXXXX
years after the theft significantly contributed to Respondent's inability to
notify Petitioner of the impound and sale.
Based
upon the foregoing, the Tax Commission finds that it cannot grant the relief
requested by the Petitioner and the petition of Petitioner is therefore
denied. The XXXXX sale of the subject
vehicle to XXXXX is found to be a valid and binding sale. The ownership rights in the subject vehicle
acquired by XXXXX and subsequently transferred by sale to the third party
purchaser supersede Petitioner's ownership of the subject vehicle. Petitioner is ordered to return the subject
vehicle to the third party purchaser or make arrangements acceptable to this
third party to purchase the subject vehicle.
This
decision does not limit a party's right to a Formal Hearing. However, this Decision and Order will become
the Final Decision and Order of the Commission unless any party to this case
files a written request within thirty (30) days of the date of this decision to
proceed to a Formal Hearing. Such a
request shall be mailed to the address listed below and must include the
Petitioner's name, address, and appeal number:
Utah State Tax Commission
Appeals Division
210 North 1950 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84134
Failure
to request a Formal Hearing will preclude any further administrative action or
appeal rights in this matter.
DATED
this 9th day of August, 1995.
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.
W. Val
Oveson Roger
O. Tew
Chairman Commissioner
Joe B.
Pacheco Alice
Shearer
Commissioner Commissioner
^^