DOT recommends denial of this claim. DOT believes the claimant's allegations have no merit and that the department fulfilled its statutory obligations related to this dispute. DOT states that it properly acquired the claimant's property in July 2008, as part of a highway improvement project. DOT then leased the property back to the claimant, which lease terminated in December 2008 "unless extended by mutual agreement." DOT points to the fact that the claimant has provided no evidence of any lease extension. Therefore, the claimant's complaint that DOT closed of access to the claimant's business in May 2009 takes place more than five months after the claimant's lease on the property had expired. DOT states that it did assist the claimant in finding a new site for its business. DOT points to the claimant's unsuccessful lawsuit in Kenosha County as further evidence that the claim has no merit.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
7. Kevin Ziegert of Hortonville, WI claims $129.95 for costs incurred relating to an error in DOC's electronic monitoring system. On March 3, 2009, the claimant was arrested in relation to an outstanding October 2008 warrant that should no longer have been in the system. The October 2008 warrant related to a work release error while the claimant was under electronic monitoring. That error was corrected, however, DOC staff failed to remove the warrant from the system. The old warrant showed up when an office ran random license plate checks at a gas station where the claimant stopped in 2009. The claimant was arrested and incurred a $112.88 towing charge for his vehicle. His mother had to take 1.25 hours off of work to pick him up from jail and go get his car. He therefore also requests reimbursement for $17.07 wages and mileage compensation for her 51 mile trip.
DOC recommends payment of this claim. The claimant incurred costs relating to an incorrect entry in the department's electronic monitoring system, when DOC staff failed to cancel a warrant in the system. The department has no objection to payment of the claimant's costs relating to towing and mileage fees, in the amount of $129.95.
The Board concludes the claim should be paid in the reduced amount of $112.88 based on equitable principles. The Board further concludes, under authority of s. 16.007 (6m), Stats., payment should be made from the Department of Corrections appropriation § 20.410(1)(b), Stats.
8. The William F. Markwardt Trust
of Appleton, Wisconsin claims $3,430.00 for refund of overpayment of estate taxes caused by a decimal point error in the reported value of stock. William Markwardt died in July 2007. His estate taxes were timely filed by his trustee, reporting a tax due of $34,457, which the estate paid. DOR accepted the return and issued a Certificate Determining Estate Tax on October 3, 2008. Pursuant to § 72.30(4), Wis. Stats., this determination of tax is final unless appealed to the Circuit Court within six months of the date the certificate is issued. After receiving the certificate, the estate trustee filed Final Fiduciary Income Tax Returns. Subsequent to filing those returns, the stock value error was discovered. The estate and income tax returns had correctly reported 132.9489 shares of stock valued at $54.05 per share. However, there was a data input error which incorrectly valued the stock at $540.50 per share. The correct total value of the stock at the time of death was $7,186, however, because of the calculation error; the returns show a total value of $71,860. The trustee filed amended income tax returns to correct the error; however there is no statutory process by which the estate taxes can be amended once six months has passed from the date of the Certificate Determining Estate Tax. The claimant believes that there is an equitable argument for refund of the overpayment and notes that it could have, but did not, attempt to obtain a large taxable loss for income taxes based on the error found in the estate tax return.
DOR recommends denial of this claim. Section 72.30(4), Wis. Stats., provides that DOR's Certificate Determining Estate Tax is final unless an interested person applies to the Circuit Court within six months of the date the certificate is issued. DOR further notes that this language is included on the certificate. The claimant did not appeal to the Circuit Court prior to the April 3, 2009, six month deadline; therefore the department's determination of tax is final.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
9. Martin and Julia Zielinski
of Oak Creek, Wisconsin claim $7,420.00 for income tax refunds denied by DOR because the taxes were filed more than four years after the original due date. The claimants state that they had many personal issues which led to their not filing timely tax returns, including flooding, serious health problems, and legal disputes with the federal government. The claimants believed that as long as they had a refund coming and did not owe taxes, they could file the returns at their convenience and receive their refunds. The claimants point to the fact that nowhere on any tax form does it state that tax refunds must be claimed within four years. The claimants also state that they had numerous contacts with DOR prior to filing and were told that there was no penalty for filing late taxes if the taxpayer was due a refund. The claimants state that DOR never informed them that tax refunds had to be claimed within four years. The claimants filed 22 years of back taxes in 2008. Three of those returns showed a tax due and 19 returns showed a refund due. Fifteen refunds claimed on returns from 1981 to 2003 were denied based on the four year statute of limitations, § 71.75(2) and (6), Wis. Stats. The claimants cannot believe that they can be penalized by a law about which they were never notified. The claimants believe that DOR failed in its basic duty by not informing them of the 4 year limit to claim their refunds. The claimants further allege that DOR was extremely unhelpful when the claimants contacted the department to obtain assistance recreating their records prior to filing their taxes. The claimants believe DOR was deceitful in its dealings with them and that taxpayers cannot be penalized for laws about which they are not aware. They request return of the refunds denied under the statute of limitations.
S821
DOR recommends denial of this claim. The department states that the claimants chose not to file tax returns, as required by law, for 22 years. DOR records indicate that in May 2009, the claimants voluntarily filed 22 income tax returns ranging from 1981 to 2007. Fifteen refunds were denied due to the four year statute of limitations. DOR states that, in an effort to be equitable, the department reduced the total tax amount due for the years 1987, 1991 and 1992 from $3,473.76 to $0. Pursuant to § 71.75(2) and (6), Wis. Stats., the department is prohibited from refunding any overpayment for a return filed more than four years after the original due date. DOR notes that directions on tax forms inform taxpayers that the return is due by April 15th of the following year. DOR further notes that there is no indication in any instructions that returns may be filed at the taxpayer's convenience.
The Board concludes there has been an insufficient showing of negligence on the part of the state, its officers, agents or employees and this claim is neither one for which the state is legally liable nor one which the state should assume and pay based on equitable principles.
The Board concludes:
That the following claims are denied:
Workforce Resource, Inc. Paul Penkalski
Evelio Duarte-Vestar
H & J Companies, Inc.
Papu Corporation
William F. Markwardt Trust
Martin and Julia Zielinski
That payment of the below amounts to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 16.007, Stats:
That payment of the below amounts to the identified claimants from the following statutory appropriations is justified under § 775.05, Stats:
Steve Means
Dave Hansen
Cari Anne Renlund
Gary Sherman
Assembly Finance Committee
Susan Crawford
Representative of the Governor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Government Accountability Board
May 18, 2010
The Honorable, The Senate:
The following lobbyists have been authorized to act on behalf of the organizations set opposite their names.
For more detailed information about these lobbyists and organizations and a complete list of organizations and people authorized to lobby the 2009-2010 session of the legislature, visit the Government Accountability Board's web site at:
Elverman, Timothy J Blood Center of Wisconsin, Inc.
Evenson, Lisa Green Bay Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Fitzgerald, Moira E Blood Center of Wisconsin, Inc.
Schellpfeffer, Jon Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
Sigmund, Thomas Green Bay Metropolitan
Sewerage District
Steelman, Lisa Novartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation
Taylor, David Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District
Also available from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board are reports identifying the amount and value of time state agencies have spent to affect legislative action and reports of expenditures for lobbying activities filed by organizations that employ lobbyists.
Sincerely,
kevin kennedy
Director and General Counsel
__________________
WHA Information Center
May 19, 2010
The Honorable, The Senate:
Enclosed is a hard copy of the 2008 Health Care Data Report produced by WHA Information Center pursuant to s.153.22, Wis. Stats. The report was posted on our Web site in March 2010. Please feel free to download and print additional copies.
If you have any questions regarding the report you may contact me at 608-274-1820, 800-231-8340 or
jkachelski@wha.org.
Sincerely,
Joseph Kachelski
Vice President
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Department of Health Services
May 20, 2010
The Honorable, The Legislature:
Pursuant to Wis. Stats., s.
50.04(5)(fr), I am submitting the Department of Health Services' annual report to the Legislature related to Class A violation committed by nursing homes, and forfeitures assessed on nursing homes for those violations. As defined by Wis. Stats., s.
50.04(3b), a Class A violation is "...a violation of this subchapter or of the rules promulgated thereunder which creates a condition or occurrence relating to the operation and maintenance of a nursing home presenting a substantial probability that death or serious mental or physical arm to a resident will result..."
S822
The Department issued 28 Class A violations in calendar year 2009. The enclosed report provides details on all Class A violation, including the original forfeiture amount assessed and the status of payment.
Sincerely,
karen e. timberlake
Secretary
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Government Accountability Board
May 25, 2010
The Honorable, The Senate:
The following lobbyists have been authorized to act on behalf of the organizations set opposite their names.
For more detailed information about these lobbyists and organizations and a complete list of organizations and people authorized to lobby the 2009-2010 session of the legislature, visit the Government Accountability Board's web site at:
Bochert, Linda Michels Corporation
Also available from the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board are reports identifying the amount and value of time state agencies have spent to affect legislative action and reports of expenditures for lobbying activities filed by organizations that employ lobbyists.
Sincerely,
kevin kennedy
Director and General Counsel
__________________
State of Wisconsin
Legislative Audit Bureau
May 26, 2010
The Honorable, The Legislature:
As required by s.
13.94(1)(em), Wis. Stats., we have completed our financial audit of the Wisconsin Lottery, which is administered by the Department of Revenue. We have issued an unqualified opinion on the Wisconsin Lottery's financial statements for fiscal year (FY) 2008-09 and FY 2007-08, and we found that the Wisconsin Lottery was in compliance with statutory spending limitations related to prizes, informational advertising, retailer compensation, and administrative expenses.
Ticket sales totaled $473.4 million in FY 2008-09 but decreased $21.3 million, or 4.3 percent, from the prior year. Wisconsin Lottery staff attribute this decline to the economic downturn and the timing of large Powerball jackpots, which have a significant effect on sales.
Total operating expenses were $344.5 million in FY 2008-09, which is 2.5 percent less than in FY 2007-08. This decrease in operating expenses is less than the decrease in ticket sales because some expenses do not fluctuate with sales. Since FY 2007-08, informational advertising expenses have been permitted to total no more than $7.5 million annually, which is an increase of $2.9 million from prior years.
Lottery proceeds used for property tax relief totaled $132.4 million in FY 2008-09. In October 2009, the Department of Administration and the Legislature's Joint Committee on Finance authorized the use of $130.2 million in Wisconsin Lottery proceeds for property tax relief in FY 2009-10, including $115.5 million for the Lottery and Gaming Tax Credit and $14.7 million for the Farmland Tax Relief Credit.
We appreciate the courtesy and cooperation extended to us by Wisconsin Lottery staff in the Department of Revenue.
Respectfully Submitted,
janice mueller
State Auditor
__________________
State of Wisconsin
