97-0719
INCOME
Signed 11/10/97
BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX
COMMISSION
____________________________________
PETITIONER, )
:
Petitioner, ) DECISION
:
v. )
:
COLLECTION DIVISION
OF THE ) Appeal
No. 97-0719
UTAH STATE TAX
COMMISSION, :
) Account No. #####
:
Respondent. ) Tax
Type: Income Tax
_____________________________________
IMPORTANT NOTICE: On October 7, 1997 the Utah Supreme Court, in Evans
and Sutherland Computer Corp v. Utah State Tax Commission,
invalidated the informal adjudicative process by disallowing trial de novo to the
District Court. Therefore, your appeal
is now being processed as a formal adjudicative proceeding. Under this process, you are entitled to an
additional right. Utah Law allows for
an Initial Hearing before the matter is heard on the record in a formal
proceeding. Therefore, the hearing held
in this matter will constitute the Initial Hearing. Please note in the body of the decision your right to, and the
method of request for, a formal hearing.
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter came
before the Utah State Tax Commission pursuant to the Administrative Procedures
Act and the rules of the Utah State Tax Commission for informal adjudicative
proceedings. A Status Conference was
held on September 17, 1997. At the
Status Conference, both parties stipulated that the matter could be converted
to an Informal Hearing. Based upon the
decision above-referenced, the Commission herewith converted this matter to an
Initial Hearing. G. Blaine Davis,
Administrative Law Judge, heard the matter for and on behalf of the Tax
Commission. Present and representing
Petitioner was PETITIONER. Present and
representing Respondent was Mr. Kevin Park, of the Collections Division.
Based upon the evidence
in the file and presented at the hearing, the Commission makes its:
FINDINGS
On July 3, 1992,
Petitioner was married to aXXXXX. For
the portion of 1992 prior to their marriage, XXXXX was employed in Japan for
COMPANY C, who did not withhold any Utah income taxes from his paycheck, and
issued to him a separate W-2 form for that time period. After their marriage, XXXXX was employed by
COMPANY C, and received a separate W-2 form which did not include the income
earned in Japan. Petitioner filed a joint
individual income tax return with her husband, XXXXX, which included all of her
income for 1992, and included the income which XXXXX had earned in the United
States during 1992, but did not include the income which XXXXX had earned in
Japan.
The parties were
later divorced, and the divorce became final in May of 1996.
While the parties
were living apart during the divorce proceedings, the 1992 income tax return
was audited. XXXXX received all of the
paperwork and did not give notice to Petitioner herein of any of the audit
proceedings.
The audit of
XXXXX's return made a change to include the income which he had earned in
Japan. Petitioner did not know that the
income of XXXXX from Japan had not been included on their 1992 income tax return,
because she did not know there was a separate W-2 form for that income.
Petitioner was not
aware of the adjustment made to the 1992 return, until she filed her 1996 Utah
Income Tax Return, and her refund of $$$$$ was attached by the State Tax Commission
for the additional tax assessed on the 1992 income tax return.
The divorce decree
between Petitioner and XXXXX required him to pay any taxes which may be due.
The full amount of
the tax has now been paid because Petitioner=s 1996 refund has been attached. Petitioner argues that it is inequitable for
her to pay the amount of the tax, and requests that she be granted innocent
spouse relief.
NAME, on behalf of
Respondent, acknowledged that the facts alleged by Petitioner are correct, and
that it would be inequitable, based upon those facts, to require her to pay the
tax. The original request for innocent
spouse relief was denied in an effort to obtain a copy of the separate W-2
form. However, Petitioner=s former spouse is
not cooperative, and neither the Internal Revenue Service nor the 1992 employer
of XXXXX will provide copies of the separate W-2 forms to Petitioner. Nevertheless, the amounts on the W-2 forms
which are available appear to corroborate the representations of Petitioner.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based upon the
foregoing, the Commission finds that innocent spouse relief should be granted
to Petitioner, and that the assessment against her for the 1992 taxes should be
removed and abated. The 1996 refund of
Petitioner should be paid to her. It is
so ordered.
This Decision does
not limit a party's right to a Formal Hearing.
Any party to this case may file 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 10 day
of NOVEMBER, 1997.
BY ORDER OF THE
UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION.
W. Val Oveson Richard B. McKeown
Chairman Commissioner
Joe B. Pacheco Pam Hendrickson
Commissioner Commissioner
^^