95-0727
Unbranded Title
Signed 1/19/96
BEFORE
THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION
____________________________________
XXXXX, )
:
Petitioner, ) ORDER
:
v. ) Appeal No. 95-0727
:
MOTOR VEHICLES DIVISION, )
:
Respondent. : Type: Unbranded Title
_____________________________________
STATEMENT
OF CASE
This matter came before the Utah State Tax
Commission for an Initial Hearing pursuant to the provisions of Utah Code Ann. '59-1-502.5, onXXXXX. Jane Phan, Administrative Law Judge, heard
the matter for and on behalf of the Commission. Present and representing Petitioner were XXXXX and XXXXX. Present and representing Respondent were
XXXXX, Assistant Attorney General, XXXXX and XXXXX of the Motor Vehicle
Enforcement Division.
Petitioner is appealing Respondent's denial
of the application for unbranded title for Petitioner's XXXXX. In XXXXX of XXXXX, at the request of the
Petitioner, Respondent inspected the XXXXX and determined that it would not
qualify for unbranded title, denying Petitioner's application. Petitioner did not appeal the decision until
May of XXXXX.
APPLICABLE LAW
The legislature has set out the requirements
for obtaining an unbranded title in Utah Code Ann. '41-1a-1002 which in pertinent part are as
follows:
(1) To obtain an unbranded title to a salvage
vehicle: (a) the vehicle must: . . .(iii) be inspected by certified vehicle
inspector prior to any repairs on the motor vehicle following any major damage;
and (iv) have major damage in no more than one major component part; (b) the
major damage identified by a certified vehicle inspector under Subsection (a)
must be repaired in accordance with standards established by the Motor Vehicle
Enforcement Division;
Major damage is defined in Utah Code Ann. '41-1a-1001 (3)(a) as follows:
"Major damage" means damage to a
major component part of the motor vehicle requiring ten or more hours to repair
or replace, as determined by a collision estimating guide recognized by the
Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division.
Following the instruction of the Utah
Legislature set out in Utah Code Ann. '41-1a 1002 the Commission has adopted Utah Admin. Rule 873-22M-26 the
follows:
A. Each certified vehicle inspector shall
independently determine: (1) if one or more interim inspections are required;
and (2) when any required interim inspection shall be made.
B. A vehicle that is repaired beyond the
point of a required interim inspection prior to that interim inspection may not
receive an unbranded title.
C. A vehicle is repaired in accordance with
Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division standards if it meets or exceeds the
standards established by the Inter-industry Conference on Auto Collision Repair
("ICAR").
DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
The issue before the Commission in this
appeal is whether Petitioner's XXXXX can qualify for an "unbranded"
title. Petitioner asserts that all the
requirements have been met to qualify for unbranded title. Respondent asserts that the vehicle does not
qualify because it had sustained "major damage" to more than one
component part.
Following the prerepair inspection
Respondent's representative notified Petitioner that his application for
unbranded title would be denied.
Petitioner was aware that his application was denied but he states that
he did not receive a copy of Vehicle Damage Disclosure Statement, which
describes the damage and breaks it out in the number of hours according to the
guidelines needed for repair per each component area of the vehicle.
Aware of the denial Petitioner had the
vehicle repaired anyway. Because his
application had already been denied no interim inspection or final inspection
had been made on the vehicle.
Petitioner stated that the vehicle was repaired according to the ICAR
standards.
Further, Petitioner disagreed with some of
the hours for repairs asserted by Respondent.
He provided an invoice that stated 2 hours for installation of the rear
axle while Respondent had indicated 5.2 hours for its replacement. The invoice also provided 3.5 hours for
replacement of the drivers side headlight, baffle and inner fender, but other repairs to the vehicle did not
indicate the numbers of hours per repair.
Although he stated Respondent's number of
hours were too high, other than the two items mentioned, Petitioner did not
provide the number of hours he felt were correct for all repairs to the vehicle, or divide these hours into
component areas.
At the hearing Respondent's representative,
XXXXX, stated that at the prerepair inspection, he had determined that there
was major damage to the vehicle in three component areas. Mr. XXXXX had determined that the front body
component had 14.1 hours, the passenger body component had 55.1 hours and the
rear body component had 10.2 hours. In
making this determination Mr. XXXXX states that he followed the collision
estimating guides recognized by the Motor Vehicle Enforcement Division. These guides are published by the industry,
not the division.
Respondent's representatives state that the
law as set out by the legislature specifically limits major damage to only one
component area. If more than one
component area has sustained major damage than the vehicle pursuant to Utah
Code Ann. '41-1a-1002 cannot be unbranded, no matter how
well the vehicle is repaired. Further,
Respondent's representatives stated that because there had been no interim
inspection there would be no way to tell if the vehicle had been repaired
pursuant to the required standards.
The parties had some discussion as to which
component area the rear axle belonged but this discussion is irrelevant because
there was major damage in two other component areas.
DECISION AND ORDER
The subject vehicle had major damage in three
component areas and therefore Respondent's denial of Petitioner's application
for unbranded title was proper. Based
upon the information presented at the hearing, and the records of the Tax
Commission, the Commission denies Petitioner's appeal.
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 19th day of January, 1996.
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.
W. Val Oveson Roger
O. Tew
Chairman Commissioner
Joe B. Pacheco Alice Shearer
Commissioner Commissioner
^^