AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Taxation and Revenue Department (Department) assessed penalties against Terry and Eva Capehart (Taxpayers) for gross receipts taxes due in 2006. The Department initially applied a twenty percent penalty based on a 2007 legislative amendment that increased the maximum penalty from ten percent to twenty percent for failure to file a tax return or pay taxes when due. The Taxpayers protested the interest and penalty, leading to a reduction of the penalty to ten percent by the hearing officer, based on the timing of the legislative amendment.

Procedural History

• Hearing Officer, Taxation and Revenue Department: Denied the Taxpayers' protest but reduced the penalty to ten percent based on the 2007 amendment to Section 7-1-69.

Parties' Submissions

• Department: Argued that the twenty percent penalty was applicable based on the 2007 legislative amendment to Section 7-1-69, which was in effect at the time the assessment was issued in 2009.
• Taxpayers: Protested the interest and penalty. Although they did not file an answer brief, a letter they sent to the Court was considered as their answer brief.

Legal Issues

• Whether the date of the Department's assessment determines the maximum penalty that can be applied under Section 7-1-69.

Disposition

• The Court reversed the decision of the hearing officer, imposing the twenty percent maximum penalty based on the 2007 amendment to Section 7-1-69.

Reasons

• Per Wechsler, J. (Vanzi, J., and Garcia, J., concurring): The Court found that the date of the Department's assessment is the determining factor for the maximum penalty under Section 7-1-69. Since the assessment was issued after January 1, 2008, the 2007 amendment to Section 7-1-69, which increased the maximum penalty to twenty percent, was applicable. This decision was supported by the Court's previous ruling in GEA Integrated Cooling Technology, which established that the assessment date dictates the applicable maximum penalty. Therefore, the Court reversed the hearing officer's decision to impose only a ten percent penalty, affirming that a twenty percent penalty was warranted based on the legislative amendment in effect at the time of the assessment.