Opinion ID: 1307781
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the commissioner's letter

Text: In a letter dated February 6, 1975, the Commissioner of Revenue notified Collier that section I of the Certificate required the taxpayer to include with the consolidated return a separate, attached statement showing receipts, income and expenses ... derived from the exempt property as defined in paragraph A. Because this statement had not been attached and filed with the consolidated tax returns, the Commissioner gave official notice that non-compliance would result in revocation of the entire Certificate in 30 days if the reporting requirements were not met. [13] By letter dated March 4, 1975, Union responded with the requested statement showing income and expenses for the exempt business for each of the years 1969 through 1973. The statement showed, by separate accounting, accumulated losses for 1969-1972 of $30,630,874. The letter specifically requested the Commissioner to issue a letter that acknowledged Collier to be in full compliance with the reporting provisions of the Certificate. The Commissioner replied by letter of March 14, 1975 stating that: As you have requested, this letter acknowledges the fact that Collier Carbon is now in full compliance with the reporting provisions of the Certificate of Industrial Tax Exemption dated March 25, 1969 as far as the Alaska Department of Revenue is concerned. Union contends this letter constituted a ruling that separate accounting was the sole methodology to be used both in computing and in applying the tax. [14] 26 C.F.R. § 601.201(a)(2), made applicable to the Department of Revenue under AS 43.20.300(b), defines the term ruling: A ruling is a written statement issued to a taxpayer or his authorized representative ... which interprets and applies the tax laws to a specific set of facts. Whether the letter constituted a ruling on the proper method of computing the exemption need not be decided, since both Union and the state now concede the taxpayer's ability to use separate accounting at this stage. But the letter can not be construed to address the issue of the application of the exemption to the consolidated tax liability of the Union group. The letter itself refers only to Collier's compliance with the reporting provisions of the Certificate. [15] Since there has been no applicable ruling, there is no merit to Union's underlying claim that the state has retroactively revoked a prior ruling. [16]