96-0895

IFTA

Signed 9/13/96

BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION

____________________________________

XXXXX, )

Petitioner, : ORDER

v. : Appeal No. 96-0895

COLLECTIONS DIVISION OF THE : Account No. XXXXX

UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, :

Respondent. : Tax Type: IFTA

_____________________________________

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, on MMDDYY. G. Blaine Davis, Administrative Law Judge, heard the matter for and on behalf of the Commission. Present and representing Petitioner was XXXXX. Present and representing Respondent were XXXXX and XXXXX of the Collections Division.

XXXXX had a number of complaints about his dealings with individuals and issues at the Tax Commission. One of his complaints was regarding liens which had been placed on his property when he claims he had filed a final IFTA tax return. However, the final return had not been recorded at the Tax Commission, so when the next returns were not filed, the computer prepared estimated returns and ultimately warrants which were docketed. Therefore, XXXXX believed the liens were still in existence. However, it appears that his complaint is that it still shows on his credit record. The warrants were released as soon as it was determined that he was out of business for the time periods for which the warrants had been docketed. It was suggested that he might contact the Customer Service Division to see if they would provide him a letter to take to the credit bureau to straighten out his credit record, but there is nothing which can be done on that issue as an appeal.

The next item about which Petitioner complained was an IFTA audit which was prepared by the Auditing Division which was initially for an amount in excess of $$$$$. However, upon his providing additional documents, the audit was amended and was reduced to $$$$$. XXXXX complained because he felt he should have received a notice of that amended audit report. The records of the Tax Commission indicate that the amended audit report was sent to him in 19YY, and was for the period of January 19YY through March 19YY. Therefore, he was upset that he had not received a copy. However, he acknowledged that the amount of $$$$$ would have been paid by him if he had received the notice, so there is no issue to be heard as to whether the taxes are due or not.

The next item for which XXXXX wanted some relief was to waive the interest which had been imposed on the $$$$$. His only basis for requesting a waiver was because he claims he would have paid the $$$$$ immediately if he had received a copy of the amended audit report. Therefore, he believes the interest should be waived. However, even by the time the amended audit report was due, over half of the interest would have been incurred by that time. Further, XXXXX has had the use of that money during that time period, and the state has been deprived of the use of that money during the time period, so there is no reasonable cause for waiving the interest.

The remainder of the issues raised by XXXXX related to his displeasure with certain employees at the Tax Commission, and believing they should have been more responsive and advised him better as to how to deal with his many problems. XXXXX was advised that the Tax Commission employees are not his legal advisors, and it is not part of their job to advise him how to avoid or reduce his taxes.

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).)

DECISION AND ORDER

Based upon the information presented at the hearing, and the records of the Tax Commission, the Commission finds sufficient cause has not been shown to waive the penalties and interest assessed for the time period January 19YY through March 19YY. All other issues raised by Petitioner are beyond the point where any relief can be granted, and are therefore denied.

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 13th day of September, 1996.

BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.

W. Val Oveson Roger O. Tew

Chairman Commissioner

Joe B. Pacheco Alice Shearer

Commissioner Commissioner