97-1629
SALES
Signed 2/24/98
BEFORE THE UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION
____________________________________
COMPANY B, )
:
Petitioner, ) DECISION
:
v. )
:
COLLECTION DIVISION OF
THE ) Appeal
No. 97-1629
UTAH STATE TAX
COMMISSION, :
STATE OF UTAH, ) Account
No. #####
:
Respondent. ) Tax
Type: Sales Tax
_____________________________________
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter came before
the Utah State Tax Commission pursuant to the provisions of Utah Code Ann. '59-1-502.5 An Initial Hearing was held on February 3,
1998. G. Blaine Davis, Administrative
Law Judge, heard the matter for and on behalf of the Commission. Present on the telephone and representing
Petitioner were PETITIONERS REP. and PETITIONERS REP.. Present and representing Respondent were Ms.
Vickie Christoffersen and Ms. Laurie Allred, from the Collection Division.
Based upon the evidence
in the file and presented at the hearing, the Commission makes its:
FINDINGS
Petitioner commenced
doing business in Utah in early 1995.
At the time they commenced doing business, they did not obtain a Utah
Sales Tax License.
Petitioner did not file
any sales and use tax returns or remit any sales and use taxes to the State of
Utah until September 8, 1997, when it submitted the returns for nine quarters,
and paid the amount of taxes shown thereon to be due. Petitioner asserts the reason for the delinquency was because it
had two different major software providers, the A20\21 system@ and the AVertex system@ which are both for calculating and reporting sales
tax information. However, the two
systems could not communicate with each other very well, and it allegedly took
many months for the testing and debugging of the systems. According to Petitioner, this process took
nearly two and one-half years.
Petitioner knew how much
tax was collected, but it alleges it could not break down the tax collections
between the different city, county, and special service district jurisdictions.
Petitioner points out
that it voluntarily and willfully filed and paid its tax returns once the
computer system provided the information for the returns and reports to be
filed. Petitioner then came to the State
and filed the returns and paid the tax.
The state did not find Petitioners or bring the matter to its attention.
Respondent has
recommended against waiver of the penalty because of the long period of
delinquency before there was any action on behalf of Petitioner.
Waiver of the penalty is
consistent with the fresh start program.
Petitioner could have also had a representative approach the Commission
without disclosing the identity of the taxpayer, and the penalty would have been
waived. Waiver of the penalty
encourages voluntary compliance.
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
The Tax Commission finds
sufficient cause does exist to waive the penalty associated with the sales and
use tax returns for the quarters June 1995 through June 1997. 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, UT 84134
Failure to request a
Formal Hearing will preclude any further appeal rights in this matter.
DATED this 24 day of
February, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH
STATE TAX COMMISSION.
G. BLAINE DAVIS
Administrative Law Judge
The agency has reviewed
this case and the undersigned concur in this decision.
DATED this 24 day of
February, 1998.
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH
STATE TAX COMMISSION.
W. Val Oveson Richard B. McKeown
Chairman Commissioner
Joe B. Pacheco Pam Hendrickson
Commissioner Commissioner
^^