IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Erma S. Dodd d/b/a Fort Pitt Motel :

:

v. : No. 1470 C.D. 2017

: ARGUED: May 7, 2019

County of Allegheny, Office of :

Treasurer, :

Appellant :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: August 1, 2019

The Allegheny County (County) Office of Treasurer (Treasurer) appeals 

from the September 21, 2017 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny 

County (trial court) which granted the tax appeal of Erma S. Dodd (Dodd), d/b/a 

Fort Pitt Motel (Motel). The trial court concluded that one of the Motel’s patrons, 

Equipment Transport (ET), was a permanent resident of the Motel such that its room 

rentals were tax-exempt. After thorough review, we vacate the trial court’s order 

and remand for further proceedings.

I. Background

The Motel is located at 7750 Steubenville Pike, Oakdale, Allegheny County, 

Pennsylvania. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 4/14/15, Ex. No. 1. The County imposes 

a seven-percent Hotel Tax on the gross sales of hotel room rentals. N.T., 5/17/17, 

at 22. A hotel operator must file with the Treasurer a tax return indicating the amount 
2

of Hotel Tax due and must remit the taxes owed. Allegheny County, Pa., Ordinance

div. 4, chapter 475, § 475-8(D). If a hotel operator fails to collect or remit the Hotel 

Tax, the Treasurer may conduct an investigation to determine and assess the amount 

of Hotel Tax due, plus penalties and interest. Id., Section 475-8(E). 

The County Ordinance presumes that all rooms are subject to the Hotel Tax 

unless established otherwise by the accurate records of the hotel operator. Id., 

Section 475-8(G)(1). However, a person who has rented a hotel room, or had the 

right to occupy that room, for more than 30 consecutive days is considered a 

permanent resident no longer subject to the Hotel Tax. Id., Section 475-8(B). This 

rental period is established by the terms of a contract under which the occupant is 

legally bound to pay rent in exchange for a continuous right to occupy a room or 

rooms at the hotel. Id. A mere statement of intention to occupy, or intention by a 

hotel operator to permit occupancy, does not create a rental period unless the period 

in question is the subject of a legally enforceable contract. Id. For those instances 

in which an exemption to the Hotel Tax is claimed, the hotel operator must maintain 

among her records folios, lease agreements, and vouchers. Id., Section 475-8(G)(3). 

If a hotel operator fails to maintain adequate records as required by the Ordinance, 

any room for which adequate records do not exist shall be deemed to have been 

occupied for that entire period. Id., Section 475-8(G)(1). The operator of the 

establishment claiming an exemption bears the burden of proving any consideration 

received is not taxable. Id.

In April 2014, the County Controller (Controller), notified Dodd that the 

County wished to review the Motel’s room rental records for purposes of 

determining whether the correct amount of Hotel Tax had been submitted for the 

period of January 1, 2010 through March 31, 2014. N.T., 4/14/15, Ex. No. 1. Dodd
3

was asked to make available for the Controller’s staff copies of the Motel’s room 

rate schedule, sales and cash receipts journals, folios, exemption lists and supporting 

documentation, a general ledger, and bank deposit slips and statements if no general 

ledger was available. Id. A review of the Motel’s records originally scheduled for 

July 14, 2014, was rescheduled multiple times upon the request of Theresa 

Harrington (Harrington), the Motel’s manager. Id., Ex. Nos. 2-6. By letter dated 

January 7, 2015, the Controller informed Dodd that if the records required to perform 

the review were not provided, the County would assess the Hotel Tax based on the 

Motel’s full occupancy. Id., Ex. No. 6. 

A review of the Motel’s records took place on January 26, 2015, but the 

records required to properly assess the appropriate amount of Hotel Tax were not 

provided. Id., Ex. No. 8 at 2. Consequently, the Motel was assessed at full 

occupancy for the period of April 1, 2011 through September 30, 2014. Id. The 

total amount of the Hotel Tax assessed, with penalties and interest, was $337,458.44. 

Id. at 2-3. Harrington requested a hearing concerning the amount of tax owed. Id., 

Ex. No. 12.

A. Arbitrator’s Hearing

A hearing before a neutral arbitrator was held in April 2015. Dodd appeared 

pro se. The Treasurer presented the testimony of Bethany Neal, an audit manager 

with the Controller’s Office (Auditor 1).

Dodd acknowledged that she owed taxes for the Motel, however, she was 

unsure as to the amount owed. N.T., 4/14/15 Arbitration Hearing, at 7. Dodd

asserted that most of the Motel’s rooms were rented by the month and she had an 

agreement with ET to house its employees on a long-term basis. Id. at 10, 67. In 

support of this assertion, Dodd produced the Motel’s tax exemption statements for 
4

the periods July 1, 2013 through December 31, 2013 and July 1, 2014 through 

September 30, 2014. Id., Ex. A. These records indicated the names and addresses 

of occupants of the Motel, the prices charged to those individuals, and the months 

of their occupancy. Id. 

Auditor 1 testified that the Treasurer engaged her office to review the Motel’s 

records for purposes of determining whether any Hotel Tax was due. Id. at 17. The 

review was initially scheduled for July 14, 2014, but postponed three times by 

request of Harrington. Id. at 24. Ultimately, the review was scheduled for January 

26, 2015, however, when staff members from the Controller’s Office arrived at the 

Motel that day, Harrington advised them she needed additional time to obtain the 

necessary records. Id. at 25-26. As no records were provided on the date scheduled 

for the review, Auditor 1 calculated the amount of Hotel Tax owed based on full 

occupancy of the rooms from April 1, 2011 through September 30, 2014, at the rates 

set forth in the Motel’s hotel registration form on file with the Treasurer. Id. at 29-

30. With penalties and interest, she determined the Motel owed a total of 

$337,458.44 in Hotel Tax. Id. at 30. 

Regarding Dodd’s claim for an exemption from the payment of the Hotel Tax, 

Auditor 1 testified that a hotel’s tax exemption statement was only a “starting point”

that must be corroborated by other records, such as receipts and folios, to establish 

an exemption from the Hotel Tax. Id. at 70-71. Exemptions for permanent residents

require contracts evidencing intent to stay at the hotel for 30 or more days, as well 

as records to substantiate occupancy for that period. Id. at 72.

The arbitrator upheld the Treasurer’s imposition of Hotel Tax in the amount 

of $337,458.44, including interest and penalties. Dodd appealed to the trial court, 

which reversed the arbitrator’s decision and remanded the matter to the Treasurer 
5

and Controller for a second examination of the Motel’s records. Reproduced Record 

(R.R.) at 153a. Dodd was directed to assemble and produce the Motel’s records for 

the relevant time period. Id. After the second review, the Controller determined the 

Motel owed $45,396.30 in unpaid Hotel Tax, including penalties and interest. Id. at 

162a. Dodd appealed this second determination to the trial court.

B. De novo Trial

A non-jury trial was held by the trial court on May 17, 2017 and May 25,

2017. Dodd and Harrington testified on behalf of the Motel. Dodd also presented 

the May 19, 2017 deposition testimony of Jeffrey Kendall (Kendall), a former 

employee of ET. The Treasurer presented the testimony of Auditor 1, Michael 

Mohring, a manager with the Treasurer’s Special Tax Division (Tax Manager), and 

Lauren Myers, an auditor with the Controller’s Office (Auditor 2).

1. Motel’s Evidence

Dodd testified she had an agreement with ET to rent several of the Motel’s 

rooms for at least one year. N.T., 5/17/17, at 178-79. She could not recall the exact 

number of rooms guaranteed to ET. Id. at 178. The rooms were committed to ET

but if ET did not need one of the rooms, Dodd could rent it to another patron. Id. at 

179. ET was obligated to pay for rooms whether or not they were occupied, but

Dodd would occasionally waive payment for rooms ET did not need. Id. at 179-80. 

Dodd asserted that the entire period during which ET had the right to occupy 

the Motel’s rooms was exempt from the Hotel Tax. Id. at 184. She acknowledged, 

however, that the Motel owed Hotel Tax for rooms rented to other patrons. Id. at 

200. By her calculations, that amount was $12,527.40, including interest. Id., Ex. 

A. 
6

Dodd could not recall whether ET paid for its rooms by check or credit card. 

N.T., 5/25/17, at 241. While she had two bank accounts in her name, revenue from 

the Motel was not deposited in either account. Id. at 243. Dodd was unsure whether 

the Motel had its own bank account. Id. She admitted that, outside of the 

handwritten ledger sheets she provided to the Controller, there was no way for the 

Controller to trace payments made to the Motel or determine the Motel’s gross 

income. Id. at 243-44. ET paid the Motel approximately $270,000 for room rentals 

over the course of 16 months. N.T., 5/17/17, at 194.

Harrington testified Mr. Kendall (ET’s representative)1initially approached 

her about renting five of the Motel’s rooms for employees of ET. N.T., 5/25/17, at 

272-73. Over time, Kendall increased the number of rooms he wished set aside for 

ET’s employees. Id. at 277. Kendall paid weekly for the rooms by credit card. Id. 

at 279. 

Harrington testified she had credit card receipts to substantiate payment, but

she was not asked to provide them during the January 26, 2015 records review. Id. 

at 296. Harrington stated she began waiving payment for rooms set aside for ET but 

unoccupied by its employees, because she and ET had an understanding that those 

rooms could be rented to other customers. Id. at 281. Harrington maintained she 

could have charged ET for the unoccupied rooms, but chose not to as a courtesy. Id.

If a room committed to ET was rented to another patron and ET subsequently 

required that room, Harrington would refund the patron’s money and move that 

person to a room at a nearby motel. Id. at 291-92.

 

1 Kendall worked as a superintendent for ET’s western Pennsylvania hydrofracking 

services. N.T., 5/19/17, at 8. One of his duties in this position was to make lodging arrangements 

for ET’s employees. Id
7

Kendall testified by deposition regarding the arrangement ET had with the 

Motel. He made arrangements with Harrington to set aside a certain number of 

rooms at the Motel. Id. at 9. ET was willing to pay for rooms, occupied or not, 

because it was difficult to find rooms in the area. Id. at 10. 

Kendall prepared and signed expense reports to keep track of how many 

rooms were available for ET’s employees and the rates paid to rent the rooms.2 N.T., 

5/17/17, Ex. No. 8. These reports indicate the number of rooms rented on a weekly 

basis, the rate charged, the occupant of each room, and the total amount paid to the 

Motel by ET. Id. Every expense report after December 28, 2012 demonstrates ET

paid only for rooms actually occupied by its employees. Id. 

Kendall agreed to occasionally “surrender” one of the rooms so Harrington

could rent it to another guest. Id. at 14, 32. He understood that, if ET needed that 

room, Harrington would move the guest to another room or motel for the night. 

Notwithstanding the expense reports, Kendall maintained he was obligated to pay 

for the rooms, regardless of whether ET employees actually occupied them. Id. at 

15. He believed the rooms ET used were under contract for a year. Id. at 21. 

2. Treasurer’s Evidence

Tax Manager testified that the permanent resident exemption is inapplicable 

if there is a break in payment during the period of occupancy. N.T., 5/17/17, at 42. 

However, as long as a resident is paying for the room, actual occupancy of the room 

is not required. Id. at 43. A permanent resident’s entire stay is exempt from the 

Hotel Tax unless there has been a break in payment. Id. at 48-49.

 

2 The expense reports do not document every week during which ET rented rooms. Kendall 

testified that he first rented rooms in June 2012, however, the first report is dated July 18, 2012. 

A gap of more than five months exists between the July 18, 2012 report and the subsequent one 

dated January 2, 2013. 
8

Auditor 2 testified she examined the Motel’s records over an approximate 

three-week period in April and May of 2016. Id. at 66. Due to the imprecision of 

the Motel’s records, Auditor 2 experienced significant difficulty balancing the daily 

revenue reports with the monthly revenue reports. Id. at 68. Many records were 

either missing or incomplete. Id. at 91. Dodd’s method of reporting revenue also

changed from quarter to quarter, which further complicated the analysis of the 

Motel’s records. Id. at 74. Of the records which covered the period from April 2011 

through September 2014, Auditor 2 was only able to balance five monthly revenue 

reports with their corresponding daily revenue reports. Id. at 75.

To determine the number of rooms rented by ET that were exempt from the 

Hotel Tax, Auditor 1 generated a spreadsheet which identified the rooms occupied 

and the dates of occupancy. Id. at 121-22. Actual occupancy of a room was 

unnecessary, as long as payment for the room was evidenced by the Motel’s records.3 

Id. at 123. Further, occupancy by the same individual was not required for 30 

consecutive days as long as ET paid for the room. Id. at 164. Auditor 1 stated her 

office was lenient and reviewed any documentation provided to try to substantiate 

the tax-exempt status of a given stay. Id. at 131-32. However, Auditor 1 interpreted 

the relevant ordinance provisions to require a written contract exist before taxexempt status was granted for the first 30 days of any stay. Id. at 157. Because no 

written contract existed between ET and the Motel, tax-exempt status was 

disallowed for the first 30 days of each stay. Id.

 

3 This testimony appears to conflict with Auditor 1’s testimony before the arbitrator that 

the Controller required records to substantiate a patron “did in fact stay 30 days.” N.T., 4/14/15, 

at 72.
9

3. Trial Court Decision

After summarizing the relevant testimony, the trial court found that a legally 

enforceable contract existed between ET and the Motel. Trial Ct. op. at 4. The trial 

court further found Dodd presented sufficient evidence to establish the permanent 

resident exemption applied to all money paid by ET to the Motel. Id. Consequently, 

no tax, penalty, or interest should have been imposed by the Treasurer, and no 

moneys were owed by the Motel to the Treasurer. Id. at 4-5. This appeal by the 

Treasurer followed.

II. Issues

On appeal,

4

the Treasurer argues that the trial court erred in concluding a 

legally enforceable contract existed between ET and the Motel. The trial court also

erred in determining no tax was owed, as the evidence, including Dodd’s own 

testimony, established the Motel owed Hotel Tax. The Treasurer requests this Court 

vacate the trial court’s order and remand this matter to the trial court for entry of 

judgment in the amount of $48,270.14 in delinquent Hotel Taxes, plus interest. 

III. Discussion

The Treasurer argues that the permanent resident exemption requires 1) a 

legally enforceable contract; 2) occupancy or right to occupancy for 30 consecutive 

days; and 3) actual uninterrupted occupancy for 30 consecutive days.5 The Treasurer 

 

4 This court’s review is limited to determining whether the trial court abused its discretion, 

committed an error of law, or rendered a decision unsupported by the evidence. Downingtown 

Area Sch. Dist. v. Chester Cty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 131 A.3d 152, 156 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2015).

5 We disagree with the Treasurer’s characterization of the residency requirement. A plain 

reading of Section 475-8(B) establishes that 30 days of actual uninterrupted occupancy is not 

required before the permanent resident exemption applies. Rather, pursuant to the terms of a 
10

concedes that if Dodd had produced adequate records establishing the existence of a 

contract between the Motel and ET, supported by the payment of rent and evidence 

of uninterrupted occupancy, the consideration received by ET would be exempt from 

the Hotel Tax. However, the Treasurer maintains the evidence of record does not 

establish the existence of a legally enforceable contract.6 As such, in the absence of 

a written contract, the Motel has only established the existence of a promise by ET 

to rent an unknown number of rooms for an unspecified period at an undetermined 

rate. ET was not legally bound to pay for any rooms beyond those it actually 

occupied. Moreover, because certain rooms were not used or paid for by ET, and

were subsequently rented out to other patrons, ET’s use of the rooms was not 

continuous.

The Motel responds that ET had a legally enforceable contract to occupy 13 

rooms for at least one year. ET was required to pay for these rooms whether or not 

they were occupied. The waiver of payment for some rooms as a courtesy did not 

eliminate ET’s obligation to pay for those rooms. Further, the fact that ET paid for 

the rooms it rented on a weekly basis did not relieve ET of the obligation to rent 

those rooms for at least a year.

Section 475-8(B) of the Ordinance relevantly provides the following 

definition in regards to the permanent resident exemption:

 

legally enforceable contract, an occupant need only have the right to occupy a room for 30 

consecutive days and be legally bound to pay for the room.

6 Notably, the Treasurer’s request for relief conflicts with its assertion that no enforceable 

contract existed. The amount of the judgment sought, $48,270.14 plus interest, was based on an 

assumption that a contract existed and the Motel was entitled to the permanent resident exemption 

for a portion of ET’s rentals.
11

[A] permanent resident is a person who has occupied 

or has the right of occupancy of any room or rooms in 

a hotel as a patron or otherwise for a period exceeding 

30 days. Therefore, the following applies to the definition 

of a permanent resident.

(1) After a person has occupied or had the right 

to occupy for 30 consecutive days, he is no 

longer an occupant who is subject to the hotel 

tax. His status as a permanent resident is 

effective for the rental period during which, 

or at the expiration of which, the 30 

consecutive days or occupancy is completed, 

and continues thereafter so long as his 

occupancy remains continuous and 

uninterrupted. Thus, if a person completes his 

thirtieth day of consecutive occupancy during, 

or at the expiration of, a particular rental period, 

he is a permanent resident for the entire rental 

period[,] even though during a part of the period 

he has not yet established his status as a 

permanent resident . . . . 

(2) A “rental period” for the purposes of these 

regulations is a period of time during which, 

under and subject to the terms of the legally 

enforceable contract, an occupant has a 

continuous right to occupy a room or rooms 

in a hotel and is legally bound to pay rent 

therefore. A mere statement of intention to 

occupy, or to permit occupancy, on the part of 

an occupant or hotel operator, or both, does not 

create a rental period unless the period in 

question is the subject of a legally enforceable 

contract.

(3) The occupancy or right of occupancy must be 

for 30 consecutive days. A person who merely 

has the right to use a room on intermittent days 

of the week or month cannot become a 

permanent resident, even though he 

cumulatively occupies for more than 30 days.

(4) The status of a permanent resident only 

continues so long as the occupancy or right of 

occupancy continues uninterrupted. A 
12

continuing occupancy loses his status as a 

permanent resident and, with respect to his 

next occupancy, does not resume his status as 

a permanent resident unless and until he 

again completes 30 consecutive days of 

occupancy. A transfer from one hotel to 

another (even though both hotels are owned by 

the same operator) is a break in occupancy. A 

mere change of rooms, however, in the same 

hotel is not a break in occupancy.

Ordinance, Section 475-8(B) (emphasis added) (alterations added) (quotation marks 

omitted).

The Treasurer does not dispute that an oral contract may be sufficient and 

legally enforceable. However, he insists the evidence fails to substantiate the 

Motel’s assertion that a legally enforceable contract existed. Where a contract is not 

evidenced by a written document, but rather “partly or wholly composed of oral

communications, the precise content of which is not of record, courts must look to 

the surrounding circumstances and course of dealing between the parties in order to 

ascertain the intent of the parties.” Westinghouse Elec. Co. v. Murphy, Inc., 228 

A.2d 656, 659 (Pa. 1967) (internal citations omitted). Accordingly, we look to the 

parties’ course of conduct to determine whether a legally enforceable contract 

existed.

The records of the Motel are clearly inadequate and incomplete. However, 

based on the parties’ course of conduct, the trial court did not err in finding that an 

enforceable oral contract existed between ET and the Motel. While the record does 

not establish the specific number of rooms ET would require, it is clear ET 

anticipated renting several rooms from the Motel for at least a year. Kendall initially 

rented five rooms “to start with, and then just however many we could get . . . .”

N.T., 5/19/17, at 7. His expense reports evidence rental of, and payment for, rooms 
13

from late December 2012 through mid-October 2013. The spreadsheet drafted by 

the Controller indicates ET rented rooms from mid-June 2012 through mid-October

2013. Although there are gaps in the Controller’s timeline where the Motel’s records 

could not establish continuous occupancy by ET’s employees, it is clear the 

Controller was satisfied that ET did, in fact, rent and pay for several rooms at the 

Motel throughout that period, and payments for some rooms were deemed exempt 

from the Hotel Tax. 

Next, the Treasurer argues the trial court erred in finding the Motel owed no 

taxes. The Treasurer asserts this conclusion directly conflicts with the testimony of

Dodd, who acknowledged that Hotel Tax was due for rooms occupied by patrons 

unrelated to ET. 

The Motel responds that this argument is waived, as the Treasurer is 

requesting the imposition of Hotel Tax for rooms occupied by patrons other than ET 

and this issue was not raised before the trial court. The Motel further argues the trial 

court was correct in determining no Hotel Tax was owed by Dodd, as the evidence 

establishes ET continuously occupied the rooms and the permanent resident 

exemption applied to those rooms.

As to the Motel’s waiver argument, we disagree that the Treasurer failed to 

raise before the trial court the issue of Hotel Taxes owed for rooms rented by nonET patrons. The amount of Hotel Tax originally assessed by the Controller included 

taxes from rooms rented by ET and other patrons. As such, the issue of the Hotel 

Tax owed by the Motel generally was before the trial court. The Treasurer is 

appealing the trial court’s determination that no tax was owed. That determination 

encompasses the Hotel Tax owed for rooms rented by other patrons. Therefore, the 

issue is properly before this Court.
14

We agree with the Treasurer that the trial court erred in determining no taxes 

were owed. First, Dodd acknowledged that Hotel Taxes were owed for room rentals 

to patrons not associated with ET. The period subject to audit was from January 1, 

2010 through March 31, 2014. At the earliest, ET began occupying rooms at the 

Motel in June 2012, more than two years into the audit period. Furthermore, ET’s 

occupation of these rooms is only exempt from payment of the Hotel Tax if its 

occupancy, or right to occupancy, was continuous. In establishing continuous 

occupancy, or the right to continuous occupancy, Section 475-8(G)(1) of the 

Ordinance provides:

[t]he burden of proving that the rent or occupancy received 

is not taxable is upon the operator and the operator must 

demonstrate same through accurate records. In any case 

where a hotel operator fails to maintain adequate records 

as required under this regulation, any room for which 

there is not adequate records shall be deemed to have 

been occupied for the entire period for which the 

supporting records are lacking.

Ordinance, Section 475-8(G)(1) (emphasis added).

Dodd, Harrington, and Kendall all testified that ET had the right to occupy 

rooms for which it did not pay, and payment could have been required for the 

unoccupied rooms. However, the practice of the parties after December 2012 was 

to waive payment for unused rooms so they could be rented to other occupants

whenever possible. This practice continued for 10 months. Problematically, the 

Motel’s waiver of payment creates yet another gap in the record which might 

otherwise substantiate the Motel’s assertion that ET’s occupancy of the Motel’s

rooms was continuous such that the entire sum paid by ET to the Motel should be 

exempt from the Hotel Tax. 
15

The Motel has adequately demonstrated it had an oral contract with ET to rent 

an unspecified number of rooms for at least a year. We acknowledge the testimony 

of Dodd, Harrington, and Kendall that ET had the continuous right to occupy the 

Motel’s rooms, regardless of whether ET, in fact, paid for those rooms. Testimony 

is not sufficient, however, as the Ordinance requires that a right to the exemption 

be demonstrated through records maintained by the Motel. It is entirely possible 

that the Motel can substantiate with supporting records ET’s continuous right to 

occupy, but we are unable to draw such a conclusion based on the original record

filed with this Court. As such, the trial court’s conclusion that no taxes were owed 

by the Motel is not supported by substantial evidence. 

Although we agree the trial court erred in concluding the Motel owed no Hotel 

Tax, we cannot conclude that the amount calculated by Auditor 1 is correct, either. 

Auditor 1 testified that, based on her interpretation of the Ordinance, in the absence 

of a written contract between ET and the Motel, tax-exempt status was disallowed 

for the first 30 days of any stay. This interpretation is not supported by the relevant 

section of the Ordinance. Under its explicit language, “if a person completes his 

thirtieth day of consecutive occupancy during, or at the expiration of, a particular 

rental period, he is a permanent resident for the entire rental period (even though 

during a part of the period he has not yet established his status as a permanent 

resident).” Ordinance, Section 475-8(B) (emphasis added) (alterations added) 

(quotation marks omitted). The rental period must be subject to the terms of a legally 

enforceable contract, however, there is no requirement that the contract be written. 
16

IV. Conclusion

It is clear the Motel did itself no favors in utilizing accounting methods that 

were, at best, haphazard. While it appears the Motel and ET operated pursuant to 

the terms of an enforceable oral contract, the expense reports created by Kendall do 

not cover the entire rental period and there were admitted breaks in payment. As 

Dodd testified the Motel owed some amount of Hotel Taxes, the trial court’s finding 

to the contrary is not supported by substantial evidence. The amount of that tax, 

however, cannot be discerned from the original record filed with this Court. 

Accordingly, we are constrained to vacate the order of the trial court and remand this 

matter to the trial court for a new determination of the Hotel Tax due and owing 

from the Motel. 

__________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

Judge Brobson did not participate in the decision of this case.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Erma S. Dodd d/b/a Fort Pitt Motel :

:

v. : No. 1470 C.D. 2017

:

County of Allegheny, Office of :

Treasurer, :

Appellant :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1

st day of August, 2019, the September 21, 2017 order of the 

Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County is hereby VACATED and this matter 

is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing opinion. 

Jurisdiction is relinquished.

__________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge