98-1176
SALES
TAX/REFUND
Signed 2/11/99
BEFORE THE
UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION
____________________________________
PETITIONER )
, ) ORDER
Petitioner, )
) Appeal No. 98-1176
v. ) .
)
MOTOR VEHICLE
CUSTOMER ) Tax Type:
Sales Tax/Refund
SERVICE
DIVISION OF THE UTAH )
STATE TAX
COMMISSION, ) Judge: Phan
)
Respondent. )
_____________________________________
Presiding:
Jane Phan,
Administrative Law Judge
Appearances:
For Petitioner:
For Respondent: Clark Snelson, Assistant Attorney General
Julie
Halverson, Assistant Director Customer Service
Brett Wilding
Vicki Johnson
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 January 25, 1999.
Petitioner is
requesting a refund of $$$$$ in sales tax paid at the time Petitioner
registered a heavy duty commercial truck.
The truck had been modified with an infrared recycling unit to be used
for asphalt patching. Petitioner's
representative explained that when he went to the CITY Motor Vehicle Office to
the register the truck he explained that it would be used for commercial
purposes in Utah and neighboring states.
He also indicated on the registration form that the truck was over #####
pounds. The employee at the CITY office
then proceeded to register the vehicle and did not refer Petitioner to the
Motor Carrier Division nor explain that if Petitioner were to obtain
International Registration Plan ("IRP") and International Fuel Tax
Agreement ("IFTA") credentials prior to registration, Petitioner would
not be required to pay the sales tax.
This was a new business for Petitioner's representatives and they were
unaware of IRP and IFTA so they paid the sales tax at the time they registered
the truck. After being charged at
STATE, STATE and Utah ports of entry Petitioner's representatives learned about
IRP and IFTA and obtained these credentials on April 14, 1998, a few weeks
after the truck was registered. Later
Petitioner's representatives learned that they could have registered the truck
tax free if they had registered it properly and had the credentials at the time
of the registration. Petitioner's
representatives felt that the employees at the CITY Motor Vehicle Office should
have informed them of the exemption or at least referred then to the Motor
Carrier Division.
It was the
position of Respondent's representative that in order to qualify for the
exemption from sales tax under Utah Code Ann. '59-12-104 (36), Petitioner needed to have
the IRP and IFTA credentials at the time the truck was registered. He stated that when the legislature grants
an exemption it sets out certain criteria that must be met in order to qualify
for the exemption and those who do not meet the criteria are not entitled to
the exemption. In addition it was the
representative for Respondent's position that it was Petitioner's
responsibility to find out about the tax laws that pertained to its particular
business. He pointed out that we had
only Petitioner's version of the conversation that took place at the St. George
Motor Vehicle Office. NAME from the
Motor Vehicle Customer Service Division explained that the employees who worked
the counters of the Motor Vehicle locations would not know about IFTA or IRP
but would be instructed to refer to the Motor Carrier Division those people
with heavy commercial trucks that did business interstate. APPLICABLE
LAW
The Utah
Legislature has provided an exemption from sales tax for "sales or leases
of vehicles to, or use of vehicles by an authorized carrier." (Utah Code Ann. '59-12-104
(36).) The Utah Legislature
defined "authorized carrier" as follows: "(a) in the case of vehicles operated over public highways,
the holder of credentials indicating that the vehicle is or will be operated pursuant
to both the International Registration Plan (IRP) and the International Fuel
Tax Agreement (IFTA)." (Utah Code
Ann. '59-12-102 (2).)
DECISION AND
ORDER
After reviewing
the language used by the Legislature in creating the exemption and the
circumstances presented the Commission does not find that Petitioner is
precluded from refund of the sales tax. In light of the fact that the CITY
Motor Vehicle Office should have been more helpful by referring Petitioner to
the Motor Carrier Division, refund of the tax is appropriate.
Based on the
forgoing the Commission orders Respondent to issue a refund to Petitioner in
the amount of $$$$$. It is so
ordered.
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 appeal rights in this
matter.
DATED this 11TH
day of February, 1999.
____________________________________
Jane Phan
Administrative Law Judge
BY ORDER OF THE UTAH STATE TAX
COMMISSION.
The Commission
has reviewed this case and the undersigned concur in this decision.
DATED this 11th
day of February, 1999.
Richard B. McKeown Joe B. Pacheco
Chairman Commissioner
Pam Hendrickson R.
Bruce Johnson
Commissioner Commissioner
^^