95-0508

Income Tax

Signed 12/4/95

 

BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION

____________________________________

 

XXXXX, )

Petitioner, : FINDINGS OF FACT,

) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW,

v. : AND FINAL DECISION

)

COLLECTION DIVISION OF THE : Appeal No. 95-0508

UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, )

Respondent. : Account No. XXXXX

) Tax Type: Penalty & Interest

_____________________________________

 

STATEMENT OF CASE

This matter came before the Utah State Tax Commission for a Formal Hearing on XXXXX. Jane Phan, Administrative Law Judge, heard the matter for and on behalf of the Commission. Present and representing the Petitioner was XXXXX. Present and representing the Respondent were XXXXX.

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 income tax.

2. The period in question are the years XXXXX.

3 Penalties totaling $$$$$ and interest of approximately $$$$$ were assessed relating to Petitioner's income tax for the period in question.

4. The underlying amount of the income tax owed for XXXXX was $$$$$, for XXXXX was $$$$$ and for XXXXX was $$$$$.


5. Petitioner suffered from kidney failure, required dialysis and eventually kidney transplant surgery in XXXXX. In the recovery process from the transplant and as side effects from medication Petitioner suffered from infections, memory loss, slurred speech, inability to write clearly, depression, back problems and other illnesses. During XXXXX and XXXXX Petitioner was hospitalized on at least five separate occasions.

6. Some of these health problems have continued from the time of the surgery until the present. Petitioner continues to have fine motor skill problems which lead to difficulty in writing and speaking. Petitioner continues to suffer from some memory problems and is currently taking numerous medications.

7. Petitioner filed his Utah individual income tax returns for XXXXX through XXXXX in XXXXX Petitioner filed his XXXXX and XXXXX individual income tax returns in XXXXX. The Respondent had accepted a pay off for these prior years because of Petitioner's illness and the fact that Petitioner had been given an incorrect payoff amount from a Tax Commission employee.

8. Petitioner filed his XXXXX Utah individual income tax return in XXXXX, his XXXXX Utah individual income tax return in XXXXX, and his XXXXX Utah individual income tax return in XXXXX. Petitioner paid the outstanding tax balance for the years in question in XXXXX.

APPLICABLE LAW

The Tax Commission is granted the authority to waive, reduce, or compromise penalties and interest upon a showing of reasonable cause. (Utah Code Ann. '59-1-401(10).)


ANALYSIS

The issue presented for consideration in this appeal is whether the illness and complications that Petitioner suffered during the years in question, when considered with the history of late payment and filing, rise to the level of reasonable cause sufficient for waiver of penalties. Petitioner asserts that the penalties and interest should be waived. Respondents' position is that since the serious illness and hospitalization occurred five years prior to the years in question it is not sufficient reasonable cause for waiver of the penalties.

Clearly Petitioner's kidney failure and transplant in XXXXX were devastating to Petitioner and disruptive to his ability to complete ordinary tasks, like filing income taxes in XXXXX..[1] However, XXXXX is not in issue in this appeal. Petitioner has already received a reduction of penalties and interest for the years XXXXX through XXXXX. The period in issue is XXXXX through XXXXX. During this period Petitioner testified that he suffered from an inability to write or speak clearly, various occasional illnesses and infections, and memory problems.


Respondent stated that serious illness can constitute reasonable cause for the purposes of waiving penalties if the illness occurs on or immediately prior to the due date of the return. Respondent points out Petitioner's serious illness occurred in XXXXX and although Petitioner has some conditions that did continue through the time at issue, by the time the returns at issue were due Petitioner should have recognized the conditions and taken steps to have someone assist him with filing the returns.

Respondent explained that the grounds for waiving interest are more stringent than for waiving a penalty. Generally interest is waived only in the event an error on the part of the Tax Commission or Tax Commission employee caused the late payment or late filing.

DECISION AND ORDER

Considering that this was not Petitioner's first late payment or filing and that Petitioner has not shown that he suffered from serious illness on or immediately prior to the due dates of the returns at issue, sufficient cause has not been shown for waiver of the penalties. Interest would be waived only in the event of Tax Commission error which was not shown to have occurred in this appeal.

Based upon the foregoing, the Tax Commission finds that sufficient cause has not been shown which would justify a waiver of the penalties of $$$$$ or interest of approximately $$$$$ associated with the Petitioner's income tax for the XXXXX tax years. It is so ordered.

DATED this 4th day of December, 1995.

BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.


W. Val Oveson Roger O. Tew

Chairman Commissioner

 

Joe B. Pacheco Alice Shearer

Commissioner Commissioner

 

NOTICE: You have twenty (20) days after the date of a final order to file a Request for Reconsideration with the Commission. If you do not file a Request for Reconsideration with the Commission, you have thirty (30) days after the date of a final order to file a.) a Petition for Judicial Review in the Supreme Court, or b.) a Petition for Judicial Review by trial de novo in district court. (Utah Administrative Rule R861-1A-5(P) and Utah Code Ann. ''59-1-601(1), 63-46b-13 et. seq.)

 

^^



1 Petitioner testified that in XXXXX near the time of the transplant there was a theft in his office and other problems which inhibited his ability to file taxes for that year. However, this information is irrelevant to the years in question in this appeal.