1. Individuals
  2. Tax Decisions & Orders
  3. Roswell Hospital Corporation

Roswell Hospital Corporation



On July 26, 2016, the Taxpayer’s agent submitted an application for refund of gross receipts tax for the period January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015. On September 19, 2016, a refund denial letter was sent to the Taxpayer. On December 14, 2016, the Department sent a letter asking for additional information to complete the review of the refund application. On February 21, 2017, the Taxpayer filed a formal protest with the Department on the basis that the application for refund had not been granted or denied and 210 days had passed. The Taxpayer received a denial letter indicating that the Taxpayer’s protest was not timely because more than 90 days had passed from the time a refund denial letter was sent out on September 19, 2016. The Taxpayer’s agent and the Taxpayer denied ever receiving the notice from the Department and filed a timely protest of the denial of the original protest on March 23, 2017. The Department received this protest on April 10, 2017 and indicated to the Taxpayer that this timely protest would only address the denial of the original protest. The letter indicated that the denial of the refund, addressed in the original protest, would not be addressed in the current protest. The Department was able to show that the denial letter was printed and the addressed to the Taxpayer. The letter was printed by a prior employee that no longer works with the Department and was not at the hearing. The Taxpayer argued that it or its agent never received the denial letter. As the individual who would have mailed the denial letter no longer works for the Department there was no verbal verification in the hearing that the letter was in fact mailed. The Taxpayers argued that because the refund denial letter was addressed to the Taxpayer and not to the authorized agent specifically referenced on the application that the Department erred. Based on the evidence presented during the hearing, the Hearing Office was persuaded that Department did not grant or deny the Taxpayer’s application for refund within 210 days of the application being submitted and therefore the Taxpayer’s protest was granted.