91-016

 

February 7, 1992 Response from Tax Commission

August 9, 1991 Letter from Mayor XXXXX of XXXXX City

 

 

February 7, 1992

 

Mayor XXXXX

 

Re: Place of Sale - Local Sales Tax

 

Dear Mayor XXXXX:

 

This letter is in response to your request for a Tax Commission ruling on which municipality is entitled to receive the local sales tax if a business is physically located within two adjoining municipalities.

 

The Tax Commission policy is to refer such requests to the division most qualified to analyze the request and make recommendations concerning it. As such, your request was referred to the Tax Commission's Auditing Division for their analysis and recommendations. The division's recommendations are as follows:

 

1. Utah Code Section 59-12-207 states that if a retailer has more than one place of business, the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated are entitled to the local sales tax. The law also directs the Tax Commission to adopt an administrative rule to better clarify the statute.

 

2. Administrative Rule R865-12-5L says "If a seller has more than one place of business in Utah, and if two or more of such locations participate in the sale, the sale occurs at the place of business where the tangible personal property is located or the place from which it is shipped or delivered." In other words, the point where inventory is stored.

 

3. If an auto dealership occupies property within two adjoining municipalities, and the vehicles are stored and demonstrated from only one of the cities, that city is entitled to the local sales tax. If they are stored and delivered from both cities, both cities are entitled to a share of the local tax. In this case, a sales tax return form TC71M and an attached schedule A, showing two separate locations should be filed.

 

4. Copies of the statute and rules referred to are attached.

 

Based upon the facts presented in your letter, we are in agreement with the Auditing Division's recommendations. Obviously, if there are deviations from these facts, this opinion may be negated.

 

If you do not agree with this determination, you may appeal to the Tax Commission for a formal hearing. The results of that hearing would constitute a declaratory judgment and be appealable to the Utah State Supreme Court. A Notice of Appeal Rights and a copy of the Utah Taxpayer's Bill of Rights are attached.

 

For the Commission,

 

Joe B. Pacheco

Commissioner


 

 

August 9, 1991

 

Utah State Tax Commission

Attn: Roger Tew

160 East 300 South

SLC, UT 84111

 

Dear Commissioner:

 

I would appreciate your assistance in helping XXXXX City officials and staff resolve a question about point-of-sale sales tax determination. The question pertains to the following possibility.

 

An auto dealership is considering locating in XXXXX City. One of the proposed locations would provide for a licensed business location in XXXXX City but a vehicle display area may be provided on adjoining property in an adjoining municipality. Our question pertains to the decision about which municipality would receive the point-of-sale sales tax reimbursement from the state.

I understand the difficulty in responding to proposed or hypothetical situations but please understand that we would like to avoid any future surprises. Your opinion on this question may affect decisions we make as a municipality in regards to proposed business development.

 

Will you, please provide us with any rules, regulations or policies currently in effect pertaining to the criteria used in determining point-of-sale and appeals of point-of-sale decisions. If there are any individuals on your staff which may be helpful for us talk to, please provide their name and phone number.

 

Thank you in advance for your help.

 

Sincerely,

 

XXXXX

Mayor