Nedeljko Gunjak, Inc. v. Com.

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedDecember 11, 2017
Docket455 F.R. 2013
StatusUnpublished

This text of Nedeljko Gunjak, Inc. v. Com. (Nedeljko Gunjak, Inc. v. Com.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nedeljko Gunjak, Inc. v. Com., (Pa. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Nedeljko Gunjak, Inc., : Petitioner : : No. 455 F.R. 2013 v. : : Submitted: November 14, 2017 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, : Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McCULLOUGH FILED: December 11, 2017

Nedeljko Gunjak, Inc. (Taxpayer) petitions for review of the May 1, 2013 order of the Board of Finance and Revenue (Board) denying Taxpayer a reduction in the amount of International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) road tax assessed against it by the Department of Revenue (Department).

Facts and Procedural History Taxpayer is a contract mail carrier headquartered in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. Pursuant to Taxpayer’s contract with the United States Postal Service (USPS), USPS reimbursed Taxpayer for its fuel costs up to a predetermined amount based on the mileage driven. To track these costs, USPS provided Taxpayer with a fuel purchase card that records fuel purchases by truck number, amount, location, and odometer reading as entered by the driver. This system does not track actual mileage of the truck from pickup to delivery. (Board op. at 1-2.) On January 31, 2011, pursuant to an IFTA road tax audit for the period from April 1, 2007, to March 31, 2011, the Department issued an assessment against Taxpayer in the amount of $258,375.52, plus interest in the amount of $76,423.79. On March 15, 2012, Taxpayer filed an appeal with the Department’s Board of Appeals. The Board of Appeals sustained the assessment, and Taxpayer then appealed to the Board. (Board op. at 1.) Before the Board, Taxpayer submitted copies of spreadsheets generated by the fuel purchase cards, as well as copies of actual receipts. However, a review of the spreadsheets revealed odometer readings that were consistently inaccurate, included entries that were rounded to the nearest hundred or thousand miles, and included entries that actually reflected negative mileage from one purchase to the next. Taxpayer did not address findings in the audit report with respect to a lack of reporting of travel through some states and virtually identical reports for several quarters. Nevertheless, Taxpayer argued the documentation it provided showed that it paid tax on all of its fuel purchases and should be credited for the same. (Board op. at 2.) The Board disagreed, and by decision and order dated May 1, 2013, denied Taxpayer’s appeal. In its opinion, the Board noted that section 9603(a) of the Motor Carriers Road Tax Act (Road Tax Act) requires every motor carrier to “pay a road tax equivalent to the rate per gallon currently in effect on Pennsylvania liquid fuels . . . calculated on the amount of motor fuel used in its operations on highways within this Commonwealth.” 75 Pa.C.S. §9603(a). The Board also noted that section 9610(a) of the Road Tax Act requires every motor carrier to keep sufficient records to “enable the department to determine the total number of miles traveled by its entire fleet of

2 qualified motor vehicles, the total number of miles traveled in this Commonwealth by the entire fleet, the total number of gallons of motor fuel used by the entire fleet and the total number of gallons of motor fuel purchased in this Commonwealth for the entire fleet.” 75 Pa.C.S. §9610(a). (Board op. at 2.) Further, the Board cited sections 313.12 and 313.13 of the Department’s regulations, which require every motor carrier to keep “satisfactory records” of all the miles traveled and the fuel used in its operations “both within and without this Commonwealth.” 61 Pa. Code §§313.12, 313.13. In the absence of adequate records establishing the number of miles operated by a motor carrier’s vehicles per gallon of motor fuel, the Board noted that section 9609 of the Road Tax Act deems a motor vehicle “to have consumed one gallon of motor fuel for each four miles operated.” 75 Pa.C.S. §9609. Finally, the Board referenced section P540.200 of the IFTA Procedures Manual which directs a motor carrier to maintain “[a]n acceptable distance accounting system” because such a system is “necessary to substantiate the information reported on the tax return filed quarterly or annually.”1 (Board op. at 3.) Ultimately, the Board concluded that the Department’s assessment “was reasonable given the lack of documentation to support the reported figures.” Id. The Board stated that the “recordkeeping requirements are intended to ensure that each state receives a proper allocation of the tax paid by [Taxpayer], and applicable to any truck that crosses state lines.” Id. Finally, the Board stated that the regulations are “readily available on the Department’s website” and that Taxpayer had “an affirmative obligation to familiarize [itself] with those regulations.” Id. Taxpayer thereafter filed a petition for review with this Court.

1 The actual provisions of IFTA and its Procedural Manual can be found on the IFTA website at www.iftach.org (last visited November 16, 2017).

3 Discussion On appeal,2 Taxpayer argues that the Board erred in failing to grant it a reduction of the amount of IFTA road tax assessed against it by the Department. More specifically, Taxpayer argues that the Board incorrectly applied the statutory rate of 4.0 miles per gallon (MPG) as set forth in section 9609 of the Road Tax Act and failed to determine its tax liability on the basis of the best information available to it. We disagree. As this Court explained in R & R Express, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 37 A.3d 46 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), aff’d, 65 A.3d 900 (Pa. 2014) (mem.):

The [Road Tax] Act imposes a tax on fuel consumed in Pennsylvania by qualifying motor vehicles, which includes trucks and tractor trailers. See 75 Pa.C.S §9603. In calculating the tax, credit is given for tax paid on fuel purchased in this Commonwealth. 75 Pa.C.S. §9604(a). In order to administer and effectuate the imposition and collection of fuel taxes on interstate carriers, Pennsylvania joined the International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA). Pursuant to the IFTA, a motor carrier based in Pennsylvania files one tax return with the Commonwealth, its “base” jurisdiction, on which the tax due to all participating jurisdictions is reported and paid. The Commonwealth, as the base jurisdiction, then distributes motor fuel use taxes to the other member jurisdictions in which the taxpayer traveled and incurred liability. 37 A.3d at 47-48. A review of the relevant statutory provisions is required herein. Section 9603(a) of the Road Tax Act states as follows:

2 “This Court is entitled to the broadest scope of review when considering the propriety of an order of the Board of Finance and Revenue because, although we hear such cases in our appellate jurisdiction, we function essentially as a trial court.” Senex Explosives, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 58 A.3d 131, 135 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

4 Every motor carrier shall pay a road tax equivalent to the rate per gallon currently in effect on Pennsylvania liquid fuels, fuels or other alternative fuels as provided in section 9004(a), (b), (c) and (d) (relating to imposition of tax, exemptions and deductions), calculated on the amount of motor fuel used in its operations on highways within this Commonwealth. 75 Pa.C.S. §9603(a). Section 9604(a) addresses credit, providing, in pertinent part, as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

R & R Express v. Commonwealth
37 A.3d 46 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)
Senex Explosives, Inc. v. Commonwealth
58 A.3d 131 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nedeljko Gunjak, Inc. v. Com., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nedeljko-gunjak-inc-v-com-pacommwct-2017.