Nedeljko Gunjak, Inc. v. Com.
455 F.R. 2013
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 11, 2017Background
- Nedeljko Gunjak, Inc. (Taxpayer) is a contract mail carrier audited under IFTA for April 1, 2007–March 31, 2011; Department assessed $258,375.52 plus interest.
- USPS reimbursed Taxpayer fuel costs and provided fuel purchase cards that logged truck number, amount, location, and driver-entered odometer readings (which did not track trip mileage).
- Taxpayer submitted fuel card spreadsheets and receipts to challenge the assessment; auditor found odometer entries unreliable (rounding, negative mileage, inconsistent readings) and other reporting anomalies.
- The Board of Finance and Revenue denied Taxpayer’s appeal, concluding Taxpayer failed to meet statutory and regulatory recordkeeping requirements and that the Department reasonably applied the statutory presumed consumption rate.
- Taxpayer appealed to Commonwealth Court arguing the Board should have used Taxpayer’s supplied data as the best available information rather than the statutory 4.0 MPG presumption.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Department erred by applying statutory 4.0 MPG presumption under 75 Pa.C.S. §9609 | Taxpayer: its logs and receipts showed actual miles and fuel purchases, so Department should use that data to calculate liability | Commonwealth: Taxpayer’s records were inadequate/unreliable and failed statutory/regulatory requirements; Department properly applied presumption | Held: Affirmed — presumption of 4.0 MPG valid where records are inadequate; Taxpayer failed to rebut assessment |
| Whether IFTA/best-available-info required a different calculation | Taxpayer: IFTA requires base jurisdiction use best information available (its supplied MPG) | Commonwealth: IFTA and Dept. rules still require detailed supporting records; Taxpayer didn’t provide acceptable documentation to alter audited factor | Held: IFTA does not excuse statutory record requirements; undocumented credits not allowed |
| Whether Taxpayer met burden to establish assessment was erroneous | Taxpayer: presented fuel purchase data and argued credit for tax-paid purchases | Commonwealth: Taxpayer stipulated it did not supply supplemental documentation; auditor’s findings unrebutted | Held: Taxpayer failed to carry burden; assessment presumed correct absent preponderant evidence |
| Whether Board’s reliance on Dept. regulations and IFTA procedures was proper | Taxpayer: (implicit) its documentation should suffice | Commonwealth: Dept. followed statutory/regulatory and IFTA procedures requiring specific receipt detail and distance accounting | Held: Board correctly applied rules; Taxpayer had affirmative obligation to maintain/produce required records |
Key Cases Cited
- R & R Express, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 37 A.3d 46 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (describing Road Tax Act/IFTA scheme and credit mechanics)
- Senex Explosives, Inc. v. Commonwealth, 58 A.3d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (scope of review for Board of Finance and Revenue decisions)