ALJDEC

99F-2155-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-07-07

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

HEARING: June 30, 1999 APPEARANCES: Acting City Attorney Alfred Smith on behalf of Complainant; Respondent did not appear at the hearing ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Lewis D. Kowal _____________________________________________________________________ FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On June 30, 1999, the hearing convened and the Administrative Law Judge took administrative notice that the appropriate party to be named as Complainant in this matter is the City of Peoria. Therefore, the caption of this matter is amended to reflect that. 2. On September 10, 1998, the City of Peoria (“Complainant”), through its sales tax auditor, sent Interface Communications Company (“Respondent”) the results of a desk audit of Respondent. The audit reflects that as of that date, Respondent owed Complainant the sum of $2,795.78, consisting of $1,831.57 in taxes, $457.89 in penalty, interest of $476.32 and license fees of $30.00 for the year July, 1996 through June, 1997. In the above-mentioned communication, Complainant notified Respondent that interest would continue to accrue and that if Respondent was dissatisfied with the results of the audit it may request a hearing as set forth in section 9A-570 of the City of Peoria Tax Code. 3. Robert Salcido, Billing and Collections Supervisor for the Complainant, testified that Respondent did not communicate with Complainant or request a hearing within the proscribed time set forth in the City of Peoria Tax Code. 4. On November 7, 1998, Mr. Salcido sent a letter to Respondent informing Respondent of the outstanding balance of $2,832.42 on Respondent’s City of Peoria Privilege Tax Account and possible action such as the filing of a tax lien or license revocation, among other actions, may be necessary if payment or arrangements to pay that sum was not made. 5. Mr. Salcido did not hear from Respondent in response to the above- mentioned letter even though the letter required a response and stated in bold letters ”Do not disregard this notice”. 6. On December 28, 1998, Mr. Salcido sent another letter to Respondent advising the Respondent that it had an outstanding balance of $2,869.06 owed to the Complainant on its privilege sales tax account. That letter stated that the Complainant was preparing action such as filing a tax lien and issuing a complaint with the Registrar of Contractors unless Respondent contacted Complainant immediately upon receipt of the letter and payment was made or arrangements made to pay the outstanding balance of the account. 7. Respondent did not contact Complainant or Mr. Salcido regarding the above-mentioned December 28, 1998, correspondence. After sending Respondent the December 28, 1998, letter and receiving no response, Mr. Salcido placed a telephone call to Donn C. Wolfertz, the Controller for the Respondent. During that telephone conversation, Mr. Wolfertz questioned the Complainant’s authority to assess any tax upon Respondent, acknowledged receipt of the letters sent by Complainant requesting payment of the outstanding balance on Respondent’s City of Peoria Privilege Tax Account, and represented that the outstanding balance would not be paid. 8. A Notice and Claim of Lien was filed with the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office and the Secretary of State’s Office in the amount of $1,831.57 for the principal amount owed, $457.89 in penalties, $549.60 in interest, $18.00 recording fees and interest in the amount of $18.32 per month or fraction thereof from and after January 31, 1999. 9. The evidence of record establishes that, as of the date of the hearing, Respondent owes Complainant the sum of $2,978.66 inclusive of the principal amount owed, interest and lien fees. 10. Respondent has not made any attempt to pay Complainant the $2,978.66 it is owed. 11. The testimony of Mr. Salcido as set forth above, is determined to be credible. 12. Respondent did not present any evidence to refute or rebut the evidence presented by Complainant as set forth above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The evidence of record establishes that Respondent has violated the provisions of A.R.S. §§32-1154(A)(5) and (7). The evidence of record does not establish that Respondent has violated A.R.S. §32-1154(A)(11). RECOMMENDED ORDER Based on the above, on the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, Respondent’s Class L-67 license shall be revoked. In the event that on or before the effective date of the Order entered in this matter, the Registrar of Contractors receives written proof that Respondent has paid or tendered payment of $2,978.66 to the Complainant, then the above-mentioned revocation shall not take place but, instead, . . . . . . . . . . . . Respondent’s license shall be placed on disciplinary probation for 60 days. Done this day, July 12, 1999

______________________________________ Lewis D. Kowal Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 1999, to:

Registrar of Contractors Mr. Michael P. Goldwater 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

ATTN: Joyce Armijo

By ___________________________

-----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1400 West Washington, Suite 101 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826