Opinion
Case No. 20040867-CA.
Filed January 6, 2005. (Not For Official Publication).
Appeal from the Third District, Salt Lake Department, The Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki.
H. Douglas Goff and Lisa Goff, Ogden, Appellants.
Pro Se.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Timothy A. Bodily, Salt Lake City, for Appellee.
Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Greenwood.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
H. Douglas and Lisa Goff appeal from a trial court writ of mandate requiring them to file state tax returns for specified years. This is before the court on the Tax Commission's (Commission) motion for summary disposition.
Pursuant to Utah Code section 59-1-707, the Commission petitioned the trial court for a writ of mandate compelling the Goffs to file state tax returns for several years. See Utah Code Ann. § 59-1-707 (2000). After a hearing, the trial court granted the writ and ordered the Goffs to file required returns. The Goffs assert on appeal that the Commission failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and failed to present evidence that the Goffs were required to file federal tax returns, and that documents showing the Goffs' income were inadmissable hearsay.
The Goffs have not shown any requirement for the Commission to exhaust administrative remedies before exercising its statutorily provided remedy. Under the plain language of Utah Code section 59-1-707, the Commission is permitted to petition for mandate regardless of administrative proceedings. Section 59-1-707 provides: "If a taxpayer fails to file any return required pursuant to Title 59 within 60 days of the time prescribed, the commission may petition for a writ of mandate to compel the taxpayer to file the return." Utah Code Ann. § 59-1-707(1)(a) (2000). Additionally, "[n]othing in this section shall limit the remedies otherwise available to the commission under Title 59 or other laws of this state." Id. § 59-1-707(2). The fact that the statute provides a specific court-based remedy supports that exhaustion is not required because the court remedy is not consistent with administrative process. Furthermore, the statute specifically notes that these judicial proceedings do not impact other administrative processes.
Utah Code section 59-10-502 provides that a state income tax return "shall be filed by every resident individual . . . required to file a federal income tax return for the taxable year." Utah Code Ann. § 59-10-502(1) (2000). The Goffs assert that the Commission failed to present evidence that they were required to file federal income tax returns, a prerequisite to the state return requirement. This assertion is refuted by the record.
The Commission presented testimony that individuals receiving gross income above threshold amounts are required to file federal tax returns. The Goffs argue that the evidence was insufficient because at one point the Commission witness misstated the section number requiring the filing of returns. However, the correct section was identified in other testimony, and the substance of the requirement was presented, even if the number was in error. In addition, the correct section was presented in the Commission's memoranda supporting the writ.
The requirement for an individual to file federal tax returns is based on gross income threshold determinations. Gross income is broadly defined as "all income from whatever source derived." 26 U.S.C. § 61 (2000). Individuals with gross income greater than a threshold amount, generally the exemption amount plus the standard deduction, are required to file federal tax returns.See 26 U.S.C. § 6012 (2000). The Commission presented testimony regarding this tax structure. The Goffs argue that the Commission did not show that the Goffs were engaged in taxable activities. Their argument is off point. The federal tax structure does not depend on "taxable activities." The determining factor of tax return obligations is income, not activity. The Goffs' implication that their activities did not come within the scope of the tax code is a mere distraction. The Goffs concede that individuals with gross income greater than a specified level are required to file federal tax returns.
The Goffs also challenge the documentary evidence admitted to establish that their income exceeded the threshold amount. The records were from the Commission, but were transmitted by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or the Division of Workforce Services (DWS). The sources of the information in the documents were employers or other entities even further removed from the IRS and DWS. Therefore, the Goffs argue the documents are inadmissible hearsay.
Although the Commission asserts that this evidentiary issue is also not worthy of additional review, the Goffs have presented a substantial issue warranting further court consideration. The Goffs have identified a legitimate issue and have provided case support for their position. This court would benefit from full briefing on the hearsay issue.
Based on the foregoing, the Commission's motion for summary disposition is granted in part and denied in part. The Commission was not required to exhaust administrative remedies prior to filing for a writ of mandate, and the Commission presented sufficient evidence regarding the federal tax structure and definitions to determine that the Goffs would be required to file federal tax returns if their income exceeded the threshold. The trial court's order is summarily affirmed as to these issues.
Briefing shall move forward regarding the issue of whether the trial court properly admitted the Commission's exhibits P-1 and P-5.
Judith M. Billings, Presiding Judge, Russell W. Bench, Associate Presiding Judge, Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge.