97-0148

Sales & Use Tax

Signed 2/17/97

 

BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION

____________________________________

PETITIONER, :

:

:

Petitioner, : ORDER

:

v. :

:

AUDITING DIVISION OF THE : Appeal No. 97-0148

UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, :

:

Respondent. : Tax Type: Sales & Use Tax

_____________________________________

STATEMENT OF THE 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 August 25, 1997. Val Oveson, Tax Commission Chair, heard the matter for and on behalf of the Commission. Present and representing Petitioner was PETITIONERS REP. of XXXXX, along with PETITIONERS REP. 2, PETITIONERS REP. 3 and PETITIONERS REP. 4. Present and representing Respondent was Brian Tarbet, Assistant Attorney General, along with Gil Naisbitt and Ray Paulson of the Auditing Division.

FACTS

1. The tax in question is use tax.

2. The period in question is July 1, 1993 to March 31, 1996.

3. Petitioner is in the business of providing voice mailbox services. Petitioner has developed its own software program for this purpose.

4. Petitioner buys 1-800 numbers from a long distance carrier and provides them to its customers as part of its voice messaging service. Petitioner pays sales tax for the 1-800 numbers it purchases. Petitioner is not itself a long distance provider.

5. Customers' messages are stored as data and retrieved by customers using the 1-800 numbers. At any one time, Petitioner has 90 ports and 1,200 voice mailboxes available to its customers.

6. Petitioner's customers pay a monthly fee of $$$$$ to $$$$$ for access to a voice mailbox.

7. On November 5, 1993, Petitioner was advised by David Christensen of the Auditing Division that its voice mailbox service was not a taxable telephone service.

8. On December 24, 1996, Respondent issued a statutory notice assessing sales tax on Petitioner's intrastate voice mailbox services.

9. Petitioner filed a timely appeal protesting the assessment. The only issue that remains unresolved is the issue whether intrastate voice mailbox services are subject to sales tax.

APPLICABLE LAW

Utah Code Ann. §59-12-103(1)(1996) provided:

(1) There is levied a tax on the purchaser for the amount paid or charged for the following:

(b) amount paid to common carriers or to telephone or telegraph corporations...

for

(ii) intrastate telephone service.


"Telephone service" was defined in Utah Administrative Rule R865-19S-90(5)(1996) as:

"the transmission for hire of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, messages, data, or other information of any nature by wire, radio, light waves, or other electromagnetic means..."

ANALYSIS

The sole issue in this case is whether voice mailbox services are subject to sales and use tax under Utah Code Ann. §59-12-103. The answer to this question hinges on whether voice services are defined as "telephone service." The 1996 tax rule, Utah Administrative Rule R865-19S-90(5)(1996) does not specifically define voice mailbox service as telephone service. However, the Commission believes that voice mailbox service clearly falls under the broad definition of "the transmission of...data or other information...by wire...or other electromagnetic means." The Tax Commission has attempted to clarify this interpretation in the language of the 1997 version of the rule. The rule now defines telephone service as "the transmission for hire of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, messages, data, or other information of any nature by wire, cable, radio waves, microwaves, light waves, satellite, fiber optics, or any other method now in existence or that may be devised...." The 1997 rule specifically includes charges for auxiliary telephone services, such as call waiting, caller I.D., and call forwarding, and it specifically excludes telephone answering services received or relayed by a human operator (but does not specifically exclude answering services received by an electronic operator). The Commission believes that the 1997 rule should clear up any ambiguity about the taxable nature of services such as voice mailbox services. But it believes that under either the 1996 rule or the 1997 rule, intrastate voice mailbox services are taxable telephone services.

This holding is in keeping with various advisory opinions issued to taxpayers in 1995 and 1996. The Commission has issued at least three advisory opinions that state that charges for voice mail services and paging services are taxable as telephone services within the meaning of §59-12-103 and R865-19S-90. We therefore hold that intrastate voice mailbox services are taxable telephone services.

The instant case is problematic, however, because Petitioner was incorrectly advised by a member of the Auditing Division that their particular service was not taxable. Petitioners understandably relied on that advice. It would be inequitable now to hold Petitioners liable for the tax, interest, or penalties when Petitioners acted in good faith in reliance on the Auditing Division's erroneous statement. For this reason, the Tax Commission waives the tax, penalty, and interest for the period in question and will only assess taxes for Petitioner's intrastate voice mail services prospectively from the date of this opinion.

DECISION AND ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, the Tax Commission finds that voice mail services are taxable, but that Petitioner is only liable for sales tax on their intrastate voice mail charges from this day forward.

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 with 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


DATED this 17 day of February, 1997.

BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.

W. Val Oveson Richard B. McKeown

Chairman Commissioner

Joe B. Pacheco Pam Hendrickson

Commissioner Commissioner

^^