Hott v. Tax Comm'n

Hott v. Tax Comm'n Case No. 20010600-CA

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Darell A. Hott,
Petitioner,

v.

State Tax Commission, Auditing Division,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010600-CA

F I L E D
(December 20, 2001)

2001 UT App 408

 

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: 
Darell A. Hott, Clinton, Petitioner Pro Se
Mark L. Shurtleff and Laron J. Lind, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

-----

Before Judges Greenwood, Billings, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Darell A. Hott seeks judicial review of the dismissal of his petition for redetermination of an audit assessment of his tax liability. This case is before the court on the Utah State Tax Commission's motion for summary disposition.

Hott's petition challenged an audit assessment dated May 22, 2000, which sought payment of an additional $608.33 in taxes attributable to the 1995 tax year. When the petition was heard, the Auditing Division of the Commission withdrew the audit assessment based upon its discovery that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah had determined the Commission's claim for tax year 1995 when it confirmed Hott's Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. However, Hott asserted that the Commission should refund the amount paid pursuant to the plan and claimed 1995 tax liability of $0. The Commission dismissed the petition based upon its conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to alter the bankruptcy court's determination of tax liability.

The Commission did not err in dismissing the petition for redetermination challenging the audit assessment of additional tax due for tax year 1995. The withdrawal of the audit assessment mooted any claim regarding that assessment. Hott's challenge to the original determination of tax liability, which was confirmed in the bankruptcy plan by the bankruptcy court's order of October, 1999, cannot be collaterally challenged in proceedings before the Commission or this court. Neither the Commission nor this court has authority to alter the bankruptcy court's determination. Any challenge must have been made in the proceedings in the bankruptcy court. Based on our determination that the claim of no tax liability is not properly before this court, we do not consider Hott's further arguments.

We affirm the Commission's dismissal of the petition for redetermination, and we dismiss the petition for review.

___________________________
Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge

____________________________
Judith M. Billings, Judge

____________________________
James Z. Davis, Judge