About This Blog
Taxes in New York (TiNY) is a blog by the Hodgson Russ LLP State and Local Tax Practice Group members Chris Doyle, Peter Calleri, and Zoe Peppas. The weekly reports are intended to go out every Tuesday after the New York State Division of Tax Appeals (DTA) publishes new ALJ Determinations and Tribunal Decisions. In addition to the weekly reports, TiNY may provide analysis of and commentary on other developments in the world of New York tax law.
Stay Connected
RSS Subscribe
LinkedIn ProfileTiNY Report for March 26, 2024
In J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Hobbit,” Bilbo and Gollum engage in a riddle contest. One of the riddles, edited (clumsily) for context, follows:
This thing all things devours; Birds, beasts, trees, flowers; Gnaws iron, bites steel; Grinds hard stones to meal; Case is dismissed when its limit missed; Slays king, ruins town, And beats mountain down.
One Decision this week. And if you are good at riddles, you probably guessed it involves time.
Decision
Matter of Babu Wine and Liquor, Inc. (Tax Appeals Tribunal, March 14, 2024); Div’s Rep. Brian Evans, Esq.; Petitioner’s Rep. Kuldip Madan; Articles 28 and 29/An atypical timey (Zoe Peppas).
This timey went all the way up to the Tribunal.
The Division issued a Notice of Determination for sales and use taxes due from Petitioner on January 27, 2020. That started the 90-day period for filing a timely protest by requesting a conciliation conference or filing a petition with the Division of Tax Appeals. Petition was received by the Division on December 3, 2020, more than seven months late. The Tribunal found the Judge properly dismissed the petition.
However, Petitioner claimed its petition was filed within 90 days of a Conciliation Order dated October 30, 2020. But that Conciliation Order was addressed to a responsible officer of Petitioner who, apparently, challenged their personal liability separate from Petitioner. There was no conciliation order addressed to Petitioner itself. Therefore, the time to file Petitioner’s petition ran from the issue date of the Notice in January rather than the issue date of the Order issued to the responsible officer in October. So, Petitioner’s December petition was late.
Petitioner also protested a second Notice of Determination, but this second protest did not include a copy of the statutory notice. The Tribunal allowed Petitioner the ability to correct its mistake within 30 days and remanded the matter to the Administrative Law Judge.
Comment
