Case Title: SER Prosecuting Attorney of Kanawha Co. v. Bayer Corp.  (concurring)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: west-virginia

Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2009-01-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 33871 State ex rel Prosecuting Attorney of Kanawha County, West Virginia v. Bayer Corporation. FILED January 9, 2009 Benjamin, J., concurring and dissenting: released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA For the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in In re: Tax Assessment of Foster Foundation’s Woodlands Retirement, No. 33891, I respectfully concur and dissent in this case. I believe that the proper burden of proof for a taxpayer in a case such as this is that the taxpayer meet a “preponderancy of the evidence” burden. I therefore dissent to the majority opinion. However, since the use of a preponderancy standard would not have changed the result on appeal, I concur with the majority in the ultimate outcome of this appeal. 1