Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): with these statutory time limits in the filing of such administrative appeals is a jurisdictional requirement in such proceedings before the BAA. See Colorado Rocky Mountain School, Inc. v. Shriver, 689 P.2d 651 (Colo.App.1984). However, apart from the timely filing requirement, there are no other statutory jurisdictional requirements for the taking of such administrative appeals by taxpayers before the BAA. See §§ 39-2-125(l)(c) & 39-8-108(1); see also B.C., Ltd. v. Krinhop, 815 P.2d 1016 (Colo.App.1991) (noting that § 39-8-108(1) is silent as to the joinder of indispensable parties and holding that failure to join BOE as indispensable party within statutory time period was not a jurisdictional defect); BOP Industries, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 694 P.2d 337 (Colo.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). The requirement that the underlying BOE 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that completion and filing of baa petition forms by nonattorney officers of corporate taxpayers was not a jurisdictional defect (B) holding that time limit for filing petition for review is mandatory and jurisdictional (C) holding jurisdictional defect voids judgment when defect exposes such personal jurisdictional deficiencies as to violate due process (D) holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect (E) holding that the failure to join all the defendants in a removal petition is not a jurisdictional defect
Output (English): holding that a violation of the forum defendant rule is a jurisdictional defect