The Petition for Rulemaking was denied for failure to include required information. Petitioner, Vitacostcom Inc., did not clearly state what rulemaking action it was requesting from the Department, and also failed to cite any existing laws or supporting evidence.

An Administrative Law Judge affirmed the Department’s rejection of the Taxpayer’s contention that he

Taxpayer disputed the Department’s calculation of the assessed amount for the retail sax tax owed by Taxpayer. The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Department’s assessment, stating that because Taxpayer did not provide sufficient records to determine the amount of sales tax due during the audit period, Taxpayer did not meet the burden of proving the assessment was erroneous. Neither party appealed the proposed decision; therefore it became the Department’s final order under Iowa Administrative Code rule 701-7.19.

The Department appealed an ALJ Proposed Decision which affirmed the Department's assessment of tax and interest in relation to the failure to register multiple vehicles, but reversed the assessment of an evasion penalty pursuant to Iowa Code section 321.105A(7)(b) on the basis that the evasion penalty was a criminal one due to the word guilty which neither the ALJ nor the Director had jurisdiction to impose.

Taxpayers appealed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) denial of their application for reinstatement after the Department denied their appeal as untimely. The ALJ upheld the Department's denial, applying the new rule that became effective after Taxpayers received their Notice of Assessment, but prior to submitting the appeal the Department dismissed as untimely. The Director overturned the ALJ's ruling, finding that the ALJ applied the wrong rule and should have analyzed Taxpayer's appeal under the good cause standard in the previous rule.

Petitioner, a healthcare information and record management company, sought a determination on the taxability of the records requests it fulfills for healthcare providers made by patients, their attorneys, or representatives pursuant to Iowa Code section 622.10. The Director determined and held that those record requests made pursuant to Iowa Code section 622.10 are exempt from sales tax under Iowa Code section 423.3(96) and 622.10(6).

The Administrative Law Judge found that Taxpayer did not establish good cause for reinstatement of the appeal. Therefore, the ALJ affirmed the Department’s denial of the application for reinstatement. Neither party appeal the proposed decision of the ALJ; therefore, it became the Department’s final order under Iowa Administrative Code rule 701-7.19(8)(d).

Petitioners, owners of a cleaning business, requested a Declaratory Order to determine whether the sale of a building used in their business qualified for the Iowa capital gains deduction. Petitioners had previously claimed and been denied the deduction attributable to the gain from the sale of the building on their 2019 Iowa income tax return.

Petitioner, a qualified subchapter S subsidiary financial institution, requested a Declaratory Order to determine whether a gain realized by the parent company of Petitioner from the sale of Petitioner should be included in the calculation of Petitioner's net income for franchise tax purposes under Iowa Code section 422.61(3). The Director found that the gain realized from the parent company's sale of Petitioner is not included in the calculation of Petitioner's net income for franchise tax purposes.