95-080

Response November 14, 1995

 

 

Request

November 14, 1995

 

XXXXX

 

RE: Advisory Opinion - Income tax filing extensions and penalties

 

Dear XXXXX

 

XXXXX, the Executive Director, asked us to prepare an advisory opinion to settle the issues that you have raised regarding filing extensions and penalties. We find as follows:

 

1. Your primary issue involves prepayment. You argue that the Income Tax Act grants an automatic extension for every taxpayer who fails to file a timely return. We interpret the Income Tax Act to require a prepayment of some sort as a prerequisite to an extension for filing. To arrive at that conclusion, we turn first to section 59-1-401 of the Utah Code.

 

Section 59-1-401 discusses various penalty schemes related to filing returns or paying taxes due. Subsection (1)(a) sets out a penalty for failure to file a return, but subsection (4)(a) sets out a separate penalty scheme which applies “[i]n case of an extension of time to file ....” If the penalties under subsection (4)(a) apply only “in case of an extension,” one must assume that there are cases in which there are no extensions. Therefore, the Commission construes the language of subsection (4)(a) to mean that some, but not all cases of late filings involve an extension of time to file.

 

If extensions apply in some, but not all cases, something must trigger the extension. That trigger is set out in section 59-10-516 (1)(b) which states that “[t]he payment accompanying the extension request” must equal at least 90% of the total tax reported or 100% of the previous year's tax to avoid the 2% per month extension penalty. This statute doesn't not say “if a payment accompanies the request ...” or “a payment may accompany the request ....” It mandates that a payment must accompany the extension request. If the legislature intended payment to be optional, it would have crafted the language of the statute to indicate such.

 

Although the Commission does not hold the taxpayer to the requirement of filing an extension request, we continue to interpret sections 59-1-401 (4)(a) and 59-10-516 to say that an extension will be granted only if the taxpayer makes a prepayment of tax by the original due date of the return. Prepayment may be in the form of income tax withheld, credits carried forward from the prior year, or a direct payment accompanying an extension request. If the prepayment is less than 90% of the total tax due or 100% of the previous year's tax, the taxpayer is subject to a 2% per month penalty over the six month term of the extension.

 

2. If the taxpayer makes a prepayment and secures an extension, but fails to file a return within the extension period, the taxpayer is subject to a failure to file penalty. Under section 59-1-401, the failure to file penalty is the greater of $20 or 10% of the unpaid tax due, and it is assessed in lieu of the 2% per month extension penalty.

 

3. If the taxpayer makes a prepayment and secures an extension, but fails to pay the taxes when due, section 59-1-401(2)(b) imposes a failure to pay penalty of the greater of $20 or 10% of the unpaid tax. This penalty is assessed in lieu of the 2% per month extension penalty, but it applies in addition to the failure to file penalty, if applicable.

 

4. If the taxpayer makes no prepayment, no extension is granted. The taxpayer is automatically subject to a failure to file penalty under section 59-1-401(1)(a). If the taxpayer also fails to timely pay the tax, the taxpayer is subject to an additional failure to pay penalty under section 59-1-401(2)(b).

 

If this opinion has not satisfactorily resolved your concerns, we will be happy to discuss it further. If you feel you cannot agree with our interpretation of the law, we are happy to work with you to ask the legislature to clarify the statutory language.

 

For the Commission,

 

W. Val Oveson Roger O. Tew

Chairman Commissioner

 

Joe B. Pacheco Alice Shearer

Commissioner Commissioner