1 / 10

KC Transportation Inc. v. Dep’t. of Treasury, 2013 Mich. App. LEXIS 1197 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013)

KC Transportation Inc. v. Dep’t. of Treasury, 2013 Mich. App. LEXIS 1197 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). By: Sukanya Mukherjee Comptroller of Maryland. Background . IFTA is the interstate agreement on collecting and distributing fuel use taxes paid by motor carriers.

cynthia-salinas
Download Presentation

KC Transportation Inc. v. Dep’t. of Treasury, 2013 Mich. App. LEXIS 1197 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. KC Transportation Inc. v. Dep’t. of Treasury, 2013 Mich. App. LEXIS 1197 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013) By: Sukanya Mukherjee Comptroller of Maryland

  2. Background • IFTA is the interstate agreement on collecting and distributing fuel use taxes paid by motor carriers. • It is designed to encourage cooperation in the administration and collection of motor fuel taxes throughout multiple jurisdictions. • An interstate motor carrier pays all its state fuel taxes quarterly to the base jurisdiction in which it registers as a licensee • IFTA then requires the base jurisdiction to apportion the necessary tax to each state in which the motor carrier travels

  3. Background • KC Transportation ran a fleet of approximately 150 trucks that travel throughout 49 jurisdictions in North America. • The Michigan Department of Treasury (the “Dept.”) performed an IFTA audit on KC Transportation for the period of October 1, 1999 – September 30, 2004. • KC Transportation had many problems related to its record keeping. KC Transportation was unable to provide odometer readings which led the auditor to use a random sample of trucks that had maintenance records containing odometer readings.

  4. Background • Additionally the Dept. found problems with KC Transportation’s accounting system for fuel purchases. There were some trucks with mileage but no gallons of fuel purchased. • IFTA allows auditor to assess a liability with a base of 4.0 MPG if there are no adequate records • The Dept. eventually calculated 6.21 MPG rate after removing certain outliers from the audit. • The Dept. assessed KC Transportation with $333,552.29 of unpaid motor fuel taxes • $33,614.95 in penalties and $148,867.09 in interest

  5. Analysis • Michigan’s Motor Carrier Fuel Tax Act provides that a motor carrier licensed under the Act shall pay a road tax calculated on the amount of motor fuel consumed in qualified commercial motor vehicles on the public roads or highways within the state. • Those traveling outside Michigan will be subject to the definition of taxable motor fuels and rates as defined by the respective International Fuel Tax Agreement

  6. Analysis • IFTA Articles of Agreement, R1210.100, states that the base jurisdiction has the authority to determine a licensee’s tax liability on the basis of the best information available if the licensee fails, neglects or refuses to file a tax return when due or fails to make records available upon a written request by the base jurisdiction. • Additionally, assessments made by the base jurisdiction shall be presumed to be correct. The burden is on the licensee through preponderance of the evidence to prove the assessment is erroneous or excessive.

  7. Analysis • KC Transportation argues that the Dept. failed to utilize the best evidence available when the Dept. demanded trip sheets instead of using KC Transportation’s information from the electronic control modules in the trucks. • The Dept. sought daily trip sheets, as required by IFTA. When KC Transportation did not have those, the Dept. sought any other information that contained odometer readings in order to comply with IFTA. • The Dept. eventually used the maintenance records of certain trucks because the odometer readings were recorded when the trucks were repaired.

  8. Analysis • KC Transportation argues that the tax tribunal erred in affirming the Dept.’s audit method. IFTA provides broad latitude for auditors who have determined that there are inadequate records. • IFTA Articles of Agreement, R1210.100, provide that the base jurisdiction has the authority to determine a licensee’s tax liability on the basis of the best information available. • The IFTA Audit Manual, A100 and A540.200, provide that the audit will be completed using the best information available to the base jurisdiction.

  9. Analysis • IFTA provides the Dept. with broad latitude once it has determined that a licensee’s records are inadequate. The IFTA Best Practices Audit Guide, states that jurisdictions are in no way required to implement the guide. The audit is to be conducted with the best information available. The Dept. is entitled to use any pertinent information when estimating a licensee’s fuel use.

  10. Conclusion • The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Michigan Tax Tribunal. • The auditor testified that because KC Transportation failed to keep required records, the auditor used 32 or 33 vehicles as a sample and used the available odometer readings. • The auditor used the best information available and the methodology was at the discretion of the Department.

More Related