Wyoming Department of Revenue v. Qwest Corp.
263 P.3d 622
Wyo.2011Background
- Qwest provides Wyoming telephone service; CALC charges were contested for sales tax purposes and 911 charges were county-specific tax remittances.
- DOA audited 1997–2001; the ratio method using CALC:911 was used to estimate taxable CALC in absence of monthly/county data.
- Qwest I (2006) held CALC was not subject to sales tax, triggering refunds beginning February 2003.
- DOA ongoing audit (2002–2004); Qwest sought refunds for Feb 2003–2004 but did not initially furnish supporting data.
- During SBOE proceedings, Qwest later produced actual monthly/county sales tax data, which the SBOE allowed; DOR urged using the original estimate method.
- The district court upheld SBOE’s refund decision; this appeal concerns whether SBOE could consider late evidence and how refunds should be calculated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SBOE erred in considering late-produced evidence | Qwest contends the data existed and should have been admitted by DOA during audit. | DOR/DOA argues the evidence was not part of the record at the time of assessment and should be excluded. | SBOE erred by admitting late evidence; record limited to data available during audit. |
| Whether there is substantial evidence that Qwest is entitled to a refund | Qwest proves entitlement to a refund using actual data and expert calculation. | DOR argues refunds must be calculated from information available during the audit using the established estimate method. | Qwest is entitled to a refund, but the refund amount must be recalculated using the audit-era estimate procedure. |
Key Cases Cited
- Airtouch Communications, Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, 76 P.3d 342 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2003) (taxpayers must provide information necessary for DOR to value tax; burden on taxpayer if information is lacking)
- RT Communications, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 11 P.3d 915 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2000) (taxpayer information requirements and agency roles in valuation and appeals)
- Amoco Production Co. v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization, 94 P.3d 430 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2004) (board limited to adjudicating on record; uses department’s valuation principles on review)
- Amoco Production Company v. Wyoming State Bd. of Equalization, 899 P.2d 855 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1995) (statutory framework delineates DOR vs SBOE responsibilities)
- Antelope Valley Improvement Serv. Dist. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 4 P.3d 876 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2000) (appellate review limited to record and duties of SBOE vs DOR)
- Qwest Corp. v. State ex rel. Wyo. Dep't of Revenue, 130 P.3d 507 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2006) (CALC not subject to sales tax; precedential for tax treatment of CALC)