…
For the month ending September 30, 2011, Taxpayer's payroll
service provider also remitted employee withholding taxes on behalf of Taxpayer
one day after the statutory deadline. For that month, the Department abated
Taxpayer's potential penalty prior to the Department issuing a proposed
assessment.
Bearing in mind Taxpayer's past history of remitting tax
payments and filing tax returns on or before the statutory deadlines for the
payments and returns, Taxpayer has provided sufficient information to justify
penalty waiver in this case. Thus, Taxpayer's protest is sustained. However,
Taxpayer is reminded that the Department may not necessarily waive potential
future penalties for late payments.
But see:
Bearing in mind Taxpayer's past history of remitting tax
payments and filing tax returns on or before the statutory deadlines for the
payments and returns, the Department is unable to agree that this latest
penalty should be abated. Thus, Taxpayer's protest must be denied.
Other cases decided this month
regarding the late payment:
For the month ending September 30, 2011, Taxpayer's payroll
service provider also remitted employee withholding taxes on behalf of Taxpayer
one day after the statutory deadline. For that month, the Department abated
Taxpayer's potential penalty prior to the Department issuing a proposed
assessment.
Taxpayer has an acceptable history of remitting its tax
payments and filing its tax returns on or before the statutory deadlines for
the payments and returns. In this case, Taxpayer has provided sufficient
information to justify penalty waiver in this case. Thus, Taxpayer's protest is
sustained. However, Taxpayer is reminded that the Department may not necessarily
waive potential future penalties for late payments.
Similarly:
For the month ending September 30, 2011, Taxpayer's payroll
service provider also remitted employee withholding taxes on behalf of Taxpayer
one day after the statutory deadline. For that month, the Department abated
Taxpayer's potential penalty prior to the Department issuing a proposed assessment.
Taxpayer has a solid history of remitting its tax payments
and filing its tax returns on or before the statutory deadlines for the
payments and returns. In this case, Taxpayer has provided sufficient
information to justify penalty waiver in this case. Thus, Taxpayer's protest is
sustained. However, Taxpayer is reminded that the Department may not
necessarily waive potential future penalties for late payments.
Taxpayer also protests the imposition of interest, however
the Department may not waive interest as provided by IC § 6-8.1-10-1(e).
But See:
For the month ending September 30, 2011, Taxpayer's payroll
service provider also remitted employee withholding taxes on behalf of Taxpayer
one day after the statutory deadline. For that month, the Department abated
Taxpayer's potential penalty prior to the Department issuing a proposed
assessment.
Taxpayer's payroll service provider remitted Taxpayer's
employee withholding taxes one day late because of the person operating the
payroll service had a family emergency. However, Taxpayer has had multiple late
tax payments for previous periods. Based on its history of late payments in
conjunction with the current late payment, Taxpayer has not provided sufficient
information to justify penalty waiver.
Taxpayer also protests the imposition of interest, however
the Department may not waive interest as provided by IC § 6-8.1-10-1(e).
Similarly:
Taxpayer's payroll service provider states it remitted
Taxpayer's employee withholding taxes one day late because of the person
operating the payroll service had a family emergency. Taxpayer representative
requests abatement of the "penalty and interest due to the family matter
and the past history since 2004 of paying the taxes timely." However,
Taxpayer has had multiple late tax payments and filing issues for previous
periods. Based on its history of late payments and filing issues in conjunction
with the current late payment, Taxpayer has not provided sufficient information
to justify penalty waiver. Taxpayer also protests the imposition of interest,
however the Department may not waive interest as provided by IC § 6-8.1-10-1(e).
