DOCKET NUMBER 04-20-6-0017
On February 24, 2004, Lorenzo V. Semeraro, the Petitioner, file a Petition for Declaratory Order requesting that the Director hold that the Petitioner was not liable for individual income tax assessed by the Department for tax various tax years. The Petitioner did not file any protests regarding the individual income tax assessments. The assessments were subsequently sent to forced collections and garnishment proceedings were initiated by the Department in District Court. The Petitioner filed a “Notice to Void the Garnishment” and an amended motion and other documents. On December 1, 2003, an order was issued by the District Court holding there was no basis to quash the garnishment imposed by the Department and that the garnishment against the Petitioner should stand. On February 24, 2004, the Petitioner filed a request for a Declaratory Order with the department seeking relief from the garnishment and a determination that the assessments issued for the individual income tax, penalty and interest was in error. The Petitioner also wanted the Director to declare how the Petitioner was a taxpayer and subject to Iowa income tax on the Petitioner’s wages.
On March 29, 2004, the Director issued a Refusal to Issue and Declaratory Order because the Petitioner did not provide a “clear and concise statement of all relevant facts on which the order is requested” as required under Department rule 701 IAC 7.56(1)”a”. In addition, the Petitioner failed to indicate that the Petitioner was a party to another proceeding or under investigation pursuant to Department rule 701 IAC 7.56(1)”f”. The Department also refused to issue a Declaratory Order based on Department rule 701 IAC 7.56(9). This rule requires that a Declaratory Order not be issued by the Department if the “petition is not based on facts calculated to aid in the planning of future conduct, but is, instead, based solely upon prior conduct in an effort to establish the effect of that conduct or to challenge a department decision already made.”