Kathleen v. M
| Decision Date | 07 October 2013 |
| Docket Number | TX 2012-000049 |
| Parties | KATHLEEN A PATTERSON v. METAL MANAGEMENT ARIZONA L L C, et al. |
| Court | Arizona Tax Court |
CLERK OF THE COURT
S. Brown
Deputy
MARICOPA COUNTY
VINCENT J MONTELL
RITA J BUSTOS
The Court took Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment under advisement following oral argument on October 4, 2013. Upon further consideration, the Court finds as follows.
It is long-established law that, if it is in direct or inferential conflict with the statutory provisions governing tax appeals, the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply. Arizona State Tax Comm. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 116 Ariz. 175, 177 (1977). However, it is not necessary in this case to pursue the matter, for the SBOE's action fails even under A.R.S. § 12-910. The A.R.S. § 42-15055(D) issue is resolved by its language: "If the person fails to deliver the report as required by § 42-15053, the assessor shall add a penalty of an additional ten per cent to the value of the property for the tax year." Unlike the preceding subsection B, which specifies that a person who "knowingly fails or refuses" to furnish the assessor with the required information is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor, subsection D contains no scienter requirement: all that matters is that the taxpayer fails to deliver the report. Metal Management Arizona concedes that it failed to deliver the reports for tax years 2008 and 2009. That it erroneously believed it had - in other words, that it lacked scienter - is not a mistake on the County's part. Thus, as to § 42-15055(D), there was no error to correct, and the SBOE erred in concluding that there was one.
Turning to the penalty under A.R.S. § 42-15053(F)(2), this penalty and the penalty under § 42-15055(D) apply to different things: the 15055(D) penalty applies to all property that should
have been reported, while the 15053(F)(2) penalty applies only to property that was discovered to have escaped taxation due to not being reported or being reported incorrectly as determined by audit. There is no bar to assessing both penalties against property that falls under both statutes. Bonn & Jensen Chartered v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 177 Ariz. 170 (Tax 1993), does not lead to a different conclusion. In that case, the State had assessed three distinct statutory penalties. The court concluded that only one of the penalties (that under what is now 15053(F)(2)) was consistent...
To continue reading
Request your trial