*1 H97 сonduct or- 1999 UT Plaintiffs the easement. maintenance of the cabin dinary repair and VENTURES, AIRPORT HILTON area. Plaintiffs easement
within LTD., Petitioner, survey to delin- the cost of should bear area. the easement eate including persons and entities 8 All No. COMMISSION, TAX STATE UTAH Plaintiffs, assigns, and heirs and their Respondent. zoning enforcing estoppеd from
should be Defendants, against and ordinances No. 970568. improp- assigns, and due to the their hems lots Court Utah. Plaintiffs’ cabin on er location 248 and 26, 1999. now court to reverse the ask this Defendants judgment granting law conclusions of and the plaintiffs plaintiffs because easement agree of the offer.
did not to the conditions merit to this con 17 There is no prepared the Defendants’ counsel
tention. conclusions, judgment. He
findings, and why provide explanation he would
makes no if the conditions of defen the easement met. offer had not been He was
dants’ preparation
full submission control conclusions, findings,
to the court omitted the award
judgment and could have then not satis
of the easement had he been why explain
fied. Nor does he conclusion judgment provision and a similar
No. 8 comply A with defendants’ offer. voluntarily
party may proposed submit to the trial court and then chal
conclusions DeNiro, appeal.
lenge them on See Smith v. 259, 260-61, 2d
(1972). parties аttorney Both seek fees requests These are denied other side. is no basis for the same.
there Judgment affirmed. DURHAM, 20 Associate Chief Justice RUSSON, ZIMMERMAN, Justice
Justice DAVIS concur Chief Justice
HOWE’s did not 21 Justice STEWART herein;
participate Court Z. sat.
Judge JAMES DAVIS *2 City. It Salt Lake entered into written transportation compa-
contracts with various provide nies to to their accommodations contracts, guar- crews. Under these Hilton availability anteed the of a number guaranteed of rooms and the rate it would charge transportation companies. number of rooms to be made available charged adjusted the rates were between the transportation peri- hotel companies and the оdically, but never more than once a month. rate, charged per daily The rate room was a but transportation compa- Hilton billed the monthly guar- nies number of rooms month, anteed for that whether not the companies transporta- used rooms. The companies tion paid for the rooms at the end assign of each month. Hilton did not transportation companies specific rooms to during month-long periods. use Auditing Division of the Commis- sion audited Hilton for sales and transient period January room tax for the through March 1995. It then a notice issued assessing petitioned additional taxes. Hilton for a redetermination. The Commission held and, 28, 1997, hearing formal on October Romriell, Hale, Stephen Brian J. E.W. Salt issued Commission its final decision. City, attorneys plaintiff Lake concluded that Division had Graham, Gen., Att’y Barnum, Jan Susan L. properly assessed taxes. Hilton then Gen., Att’y attorneys Asst. for defendant petition filed for review with court. matter, parties agree As an initial all ZIMMERMAN, Justice: arrangements transpor- that the between the Ventures, Airport Hilton Ltd. companies tation satisfy and Hilton do not (“Hilton”) seeks of a Tax review Commission issue, however, rule. Commission’s (“Commission”) assessing order sales and use key is whether the rule is valid. The (hereinafter collеctively referred to as determining validity imposition taxes”) “sales and transient room taxes on liability on Hilton is whether the charges guaranteed Hilton made hotel R865-19S-79, is consistent with the authoriz- period January accommodations for the ing statutes. There are two In finding March 1995. Hilton purports implement: the rule section 59- liable, the Commission relied on Utah Ad (“the 103(l)(i), statute”) sales tax and sec- 12— R865-19S-79, ministrative Code a rule the (“the tion 59-12-301 stat- transient room tax promulgated sec ute”). The sales statute reads: 59-12-103(1)0) tion of the Code. We conclude (1) purchaser There a tax is levied on the rule is because it invalid does not paid the amount for the comport plain language with the of the au following: thorizing statute. the Commis relying erred in sion on the rule.
¶2 (i) Commission, home, hotel, motel, Before the parties tourist or trailer stipulated following to the facts. court accommodations and for less services operated Airpоrt days. owned and Hilton Inn than 30 consecutive
H99 59-12-103(1)© (1996).1 park or similar business ational vehicle Ann. Code period is where the rental less room tax statute reads: The transient days. consecutive (1) body im- county legislative Any 3% tax not to exceed pose transient room (Supp. Utah Admin. Code R865-19S-96 suite, of a every ocсupancy the rent *3 1997). rule, and The second room, persons, companies, all or rooms on in validity of is the central issue which persons, corporations, or similar other It what appeal, is defines con- R865-19S-79. organizations doing business as groups, or purchase of “accommodations stitutes the inns, сourts, hotels, motels, or simi- motor than longer services” for 30 under public lar accommodations. statute, section 59-12-103. the sales tax (2) may, county body Any Rule R865-19S-79 reads: time, or tran- increase decrease the time to A. Definitions necessary or tax as desirable sient room regulate the transient room and shall residency Tax not
by apply ordinance. B. shall where continuously the terms maintained under (1996).2 The § Ann. Code 59-12-301 agreement for 30 or of a written used in section 59-12-301 word “transient” more. Code, of in 17-31-4 defined section part: in identify reads relevant The must 1. written room, unit, trailer, apartment, suite, room, any person occupies any space park trailer or to that motel, hotel, court, in a motor or rooms occupied period. inn, or public similar accommodation days. fewer than 30 consecutive or must 2. The accommodations services (1995).3 specified monthly rate be billed at a These Ann. 17-31-4 Utah Code daily rates. not an accumulation of Commission are statutes which under which authorized to administer and (Supp. Admin. Code R865-19S-79 Hilton was assessed. 1997). together, rules re- Taken these two promulgated 5 two The Commission charge both quire transient 59-12-103 regulations pursuant to sections of tax and sales tax whenever conditions of 59-12-301. The first R865-19S-96 not met. R865-19S-79 It binds the the Utah Administrative Code. by Any regulations promulgated 6 together. that when- two statutes insures interpret sec- Commission pay must sales ever an individual 59-12-301, 59-12-103, of or 17-31-4 tions room tax. also transient must harmony language in must with the Code be Rule R865-19S-96 states: Phosphates SF Ltd. of these statutes. See 59-12-301 au- A. Utah Code Ann. Section (Utаh Div., 384, P.2d 385 Co. county any commission- thorizes board 1998) regula- (holding agency may adopt The impose ers to transient room tax. rights greater which confer disabili- tions charged in room tax shall be transient statute). underlying question ties to sales tax authorized 59-12- addition keep- at issue whether R865-19S-79 103®. ing with statutes. these B. room tax shall Thе transient out price any We set the standard motor first on rental 59-1-610(1)(b) inn, home, court, motel, hotel, of review. Under section tourist campground, park, recre- the Code: mobile home 12—103(1)(i) that the law has as it then existed and note law has been amended Section 59— opinion. changed any way relevant to this We Commission made its decision. since the apply as it note that the the law then existed but since the any part. been amended changed in 3.Section 17-31-4 has has not relevant section apply We made its decision. Commission note it has not existed and law as then 59-12-301 has been amended since
2. Sectiоn any way changed apply relevant to made We its decision. (1) reviewing adjudicative operate formal issue When statutes at they proceedings imposition the com- commenced before describe who statutes — mission, the Court be taxed. We ‘“construe taxation statutes liberally taxpаyer, Court shall: leaving favor of the legislature clarify an intent more to be County if intent restrictive such exists.’” (b) grant commission deference no Equalization Bd. v. Utah Tax State law, applying concerning conclusions of its 1997) Comm’n, 370, (Utah 944 P.2d standard, error unless there correction of (quoting County Salt Lake v. State Tax explicit grant is an contained discretion Comm’n, (Utah 1989)); appellate in a statute at issue before the Ltd., also Phosphates see SF 972 P.2d at *4 court. 386.5 59-1-610(1)(b)(1996). Utah Code Ann. ¶ Bearing 10 these rules of construction applied This standard no-deferenee must be mind, in we in first address the statutes expressly grants agency unless a statute thе 59-12-103(1)(i) question. Under section id.; interpret discretion to a statute. See see 59-12-301, taxed, public to be one must use Div., Harper also v. Auditing Inv. 868 P.2d accommodations for “fewer than 30 consecu 813, (Utah 1994); 815 Morton Int’l Inc. v. days.” Longer periods occupancy tive are (Utah Div., 581, Auditing 814 P.2d 588-89 appear taxed. The statutes to make the 1991); Waters, Olympus Mt. v. Inc. Utah period of occupancy the relevant determinant Comm’n, 1271, State Tax 877 P.2d 1271-72 transaction, taxability not whether (Utah Ct.App.1994). explicit There is no room, occupancy the aof the statutory grant of discretion to the Commis written, billing or the occurs 12—103(1)(i), interpret sion to sections 59- mоnthly. 59— 12-301, Therefore, agency’s or 17-31-4.4 the 59-12-103(1)(i example, 11 For section interpretation statutes, of these as evidenced )imposes purchaser a tax on “the the by promulgated, legal the rule it has paid hotel, motel, amount for ... determination which we review for correct or trailer court accommodations and services ness. days.” than plain for less 30 From lan question guage, is whether R865- appear purchasing that one 59-12-103(1)(i). harmony 19S-79 inis “accommodations” at a hotel for than more recently Phosphates, As this court held SF by 30 would not be covered if, uphold only we will regardless the Commission’s rule purсhaser of whether that used alia, greater rights inter it does not “confer continuously one room or used a different underlying night. 59-12-301, disabilities” than the statute. each room And section 384, 386, 18, 18. Rep. together 972 P.2d 346 Utah 17-31-4, Adv. taken with section defines In Crowther v. Nationwide purposes Mutual Insur a “transient” for the tran Co., ance Court Apрeals correct “any occupies sient tax as ly may suite, held agency any room, hotel, that an motel, not take actions or rooms Act, design court, inn, which ‘“conflict with of an public and motor or similar accommo they duty when do the court has a to days.” invali 30 dation fewer than consecutive (Utah 1119, date them.’” Again, 762 P.2d 1122 not specifically statute does re Ct.App.1988) (quoting quire Travelers Indem. Co. occupy one same room Barnes, 278, 300, v. 191 Colo. 552 303 P.2d more 30 consecutive to fall outside (1976)). scope of the tax. The critical issue correctly 4. The Utah Court of has noted rule granting 5. The ex- different granted аuthority that the Commission has been cases, emptions from In taxation. such code, to administer the tax but that adminis strictly against court construes the statute grant trative to administer a not to be statute is 386, taxpayer. Phosphates, See SF 972 P.2d at grant interpret confused with a of discretion to 19; Rep. Newspaрer 346 Adv. at see also Corp. the statute. See Belnorth Petroleum v. State Div., 266, Agency Corp. Auditing 270 Comm’n, (Utah Tax P.2d 268 n. 5 Ct. (Utah 1997). (citations App.1993) omitted). taxpay- exemptions against construed requirement of 30 consecu- to be seems Similarly, be relevant to the Commission the stat- er should occupancy. days of tive regulations. require when it drafts its that the accommodations utes priced days or more purchased for 30 conclusion, In Rule R865-19S-79 way in to taxation. any particular order avoid broad; power assess too exceeds the to wheth- Again, criterion which determines by room as sales and transient authorizеd length of the to be the er is taxed seems one statutes, authorizing it is therefore purchased. period accommodations relied on this rule stricken. finding that Hilton owed promulgat- rule next address the We and transient room tax for the Division sales by these ed the Commission January period apparent Commis- statutes. But Hilton would not of 1995. rule has added other criteria sion’s have to owe taxes. been found effect, taxability. In determining statute requiring the order these although one have provides is overturned. days or accommodations for 30 purchased more, subject is still to the taxes unless concurs ORME Justice thinks сon- other indicia that the Commission ZIMMERMAN’S *5 (i) including present, “residency” are stitute in the concurs Justice STEWART identifying specific agreement a a written (ii) result. monthly billing at room to be used and a daily of
rate
than an accumulation
rather
¶ 17 Associate
Justice DURHAM
Chief
then,
rule,
rates. The net effect of the
herein;
pаrticipate
does
Court of
not
extending
reach
the
that the Commission
K. ORME sat.
GREGORY
beyond
two
what a narrow
of these
Justice,
HOWE,
dissenting:
Chief
This is
reading of the statutes would allow.
Phosphates.
prohibited by SF
See 972 P.2d
opinion,
my
In
18 I dissent.
rule
(Utah 1998).
inway
the
at 384
The
taxing
with
R865-19S-79 is consistent
beyond
imposing
rule
statute
reaches
implements.
that it
stаtutes
easily
under
example,
seen. For
tax
important
in mind
It is
to bear
at
long-term
of a hotel who
a
resident
legislative
intent that
the outset that it is
agreement with
does
have a written
not
imposed
hotel
on short
sales tax should be
pay
required to
sales
hotel would be
more,
thirty days
stays,
stays
that
of
but
Similarly,
oсcupying only
room.
even if
characteristics, should
which have residential
a
a
who
home as month-to-
a student
rents
taxed, just
leasing
and
not
as the rental
be
a
month tenant without written lease
In
apartments
not taxed.
homes and
But,
long-term
if
as
even a
the tax well.
words,
legislature intended to treat
other
аrrange-
guest
hotel
were to memorialize
thirty days
stays of
or more the same
hotel
still
writing,
ment in
the Commission would
leasing
it
the rental and
of homes
treats
change
in a
if she were interested
her
typically for one
apartments
and
which are
midway
scenery and switched rooms
case,
howev-
month
In
instant
or more.
contemplated by
the month. None
er,
transporta-
arrangement with the
Hilton’s
beyond
rule
the statute.
vastly
companies
different from the
tion
power and is
scope
of the Commission’s
arrange-
typical
rental
residential
lease or
invalid.
Here,
stays by differ-
have short
ment.
we
rooms, and
trans-
pеople in different
ent
¶ We,
that
note for future reference
daily
companies
at
rates.
portation
are billed
promulgates
rules
when the Commission
an
statutes,
majority apparently requires
it
administering taxing
would be
an exact mirror of
rule to be
into account the
administrative
reasonable
it
take
agree
I
implements.
construing
the statute
court takes
approach that this
exemp-
expand
not
or narrow the
taxing
fact that
statutes
tax statutes. The
However,
are used
statute.
rules
taxpayer tion
in favor of the
are construed
apply
particular
circumstances
monthly daily accumulation of requirements
rate. These ensure that followed, i.e., intent bewill
persons in a who reside hotel room for more thirty days par on a treated
persons might apartment rent an aor thirty
house or more. requirement written simply is not offensive since *6 proof eligibility exemp-
furnishes requirement
tion. The that a person
must be identified ensures that occupying thirty days that room for or
more, just renting as that apartment.
home requirement
the room must be billed at a month-
ly again attempts put arrange- rate par
ment person renting on with that of a
leasing apartment thirty or house for typically more who are a monthly billed Thus,
rate. I nothing find exemption granted by
narrows the legis- simply
lature. The rule ensures that given
exemption only in accordance prevents intent. The rule exemption being utilized in situa- legislature
tions other than where the intend- apply.
ed it to
¶ 22 Justice concurs in RUSSON Chief dissenting opinion.
Justice HOWE’s