I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - S A- 0 1 5 4 8 - CO A M I S S I S S I P P I DE P ART M EN T OF RE VE NUE F / K/A MI S S I S S I P P I S T AT E T AX CO M M I S S I ON AP P EL LA NT

v. J OH NNY REB AVI ATI ON , LLC APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 20/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . P ERC Y L. LYNCHARD J R. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: TAT E COUNTY CHANCERY COURT AT T ORNE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : AB I GAI L M AR S HAL L M AR BU RY GA RY W OO D STRI NG ER A T T O RN E Y S F O R A P P E L L E E : JO H N T H O M A S L A M A R III J OHN THOM AS L AM AR J R. NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES T RI AL CO UR T DI S P OS I T I ON: VAC AT E D AS S E S S M E NT OF US E T AX AND OR DE RE D R E F UND OF AS S E S S M E NT P L US STA TU TO RY I N TER EST D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 10/ 14/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E G R I F F I S, P . J. , M A X W E L L A N D F A I R , JJ. M AXW ELL, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . T he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof R ev e nu e ( M D O R) de t erm i ned J ohnny R eb A vi at i on L L C ( J ohnny R eb) , an ai rpl ane de al er s hi p, w as al s o chart er i ng the ai rpl anes i tw as o ffe rin g fo r sa le, w h ich m e a n t ith a d to p a y a u se tax . Jo h n n y R e b d isa g re e d a n d ap p e a led to th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt . ¶2. T he o nly quest i on before the ch ancell or w as w hetherM D O R ’s decis i on t o assess a use t ax w as arbi tr ary and capr i ci ous oruns upport ed by s ubs t ant i al e vi dence . A nd i n thi s cas e, the

### Equif ax, Inc . v. Mi

ss . De p’t of Revenue , 12 5 S o. 3 d 3 6 (M iss. 20 13 ). 1 

### 2 ch an ce ll o r co n fi rm ed tha t sub stan ti al do cu m en tary e v iden ce
— inclu d ing Jo h n n y R eb ’s
o p era t i ng agreem ent, feder al t ax returns, i nv oices , and gen eral l edg er— supp ort ed M D O R ’s conclus i on thatJ ohnny R eb had be en us i ng f orc hart er s the ai rpl anes i tw as tryi ng t o s el l . Y et the chancel l ors t i l l vaca t ed the as s es s m ent . T he chancel l oracce pt ed an al t ernat i ve expl anat i on an d m ad e h is o w n de term ination th at, co n tr ary t o th e co m p an y ’s r ec o rds a n d d o c u m e n tary e v id e n c e , J o h n n y R e b h a d n o t b e e n u s in g th e p la n e s fo r c h a rt e rs . ¶ 3 . A fte r re v iew , w e fin d , ac c o rd in g to th e M iss iss ip p i S u p re m e C o u rt’s r e c e n t d e c isio n in E qui f ax, I nc. v. Mis s is s i

ppiD epar tm ent

of R eve nue , thi s det erm i nat i on w as out s i de the

1 chanc ery court ’ s appel l at e purvi ew , w hi ch w as l i m i t ed t o deci di ng i f M D O R ’ s deci s i on w as s upport ed by subst ant i al evi dence orw as arbi tr ary and capr i ci ous . B ecaus e s ubs t ant i al
ev iden ce su p p o rt ed M D O R ’s d ec isi o n , itw as clea r erro r fo r the c h an ce ll o r t o v ac ate M D O R ’s d e c isio n . W e th u s re v e rse a n d re n d e r, re in sta tin g M D O R ’s a ss e ss m e n t. Back gr ound I . Au dit

a n d De c is io n b

y M DOR ¶ 4 . M ich a e l M a ss e y o w n s T a te A ir L L C , an d Jo h n R o e b u c ko w n s J R -M S A v iatio n . T h e ir tw o ent i t i es partner ed i n M ar ch 2005 t o f orm J ohnny R eb. J ohnny R eb hol ds a l i cens e t o buy and s el l a i rpl anes . A nd betw een 2005 a nd 2008, J ohnny R eb boughtthr ee a i rpl anes , s el l i ng th e fi rs t tw o a n d lo s in g th e th ir d in a fi re . ¶ 5 . M D O R d e c id e d to c o n d u c t a sa les -ta x au d it f o r J o h n n y R e b ’s fi rs t th re e y e a rs in bus i nes s . B utonce the audi t orbegan i nves t i gat i ng Johnny R eb’ s r ecor ds , s he qui ckl y r eal i zed

### 3

a u s e -t a x a u d it w o u ld b e m o re ap p ro p ri a te . ¶6 . M i s s i s s i ppi i m pos es a use t ax on per s on a l pr op e rty— i nc l ud i ng a i r c r a f t

— “f or the pr i vi l ege of

us i ng . . . [ the ai r cr af t ] w i thi n the s t at e[ . ] ” M i s s . C ode A nn . § 2 7-67- 5 ( R ev. 2010) . T he us e- t ax r at e i s the s ame as the s al es - t ax r at e, w hi ch f orai r cr af ti s thr ee pe r centof the pur chas e pr i ce. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 67- 5( a) ; M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 65- 17( 1) ( d) ( R ev. 2010) . N o us e t ax w i l l be i m pos ed, how ever , w hen the thr ee- per cents al es t ax has al r eady be en pai d on the ai r cr af

t

— orw hen anothers t at e has a l r eady l evi ed a s al es orus e t ax. M i s s . C ode A n n . § 2 7 -6 7 -7 (a ) (R e v . 2 0 1 0 ). H e re , J o h n n y R e b p a idn o sa les tax e s w h e n it p u rc h a se d its thr ee a i rpl anes . So i f

i tus ed the pl anes f

ora nythi ng otherthan t o try t o s el l them, eac h pl ane u s e d w a s s u b

je c t to a u s e ta x a t th e ra te o f th re e p e rc e n t o f th e p u rc h a s e p ri c e . ¶ 7 . C o m b in g th ro u g h th e in v o ice s Jo h n n y R e b h a d p ro v id e d , th e a u d ito r n o tice d th a t, w h ile a f ew i nvoi ces c l ear l y s t at ed thatthe purpos e of the f l i ghtw as t o demonstr at e the ai r cr af tt o a pot ent i al buyer , m any more i nvoi ces l i s t ed M as s ey, R oeb uck, orcompani es ow ned by them as the cu st om er— i nd i cat i ng M assey and R oeb uck w ere usi ng the pl anes for theirpersonal use
a n d n o t to fu rth e r sa le. A d d iti o n a lly , the c o m p a n y ’s g e n e ra l led g e r h a d m u lti p le r e fe re n c e s to

“ w e t le a s e s ”

— i.e ., c h a rt e re d fl ig h ts . A n d re fe re n c e s to “ c h a rt e r i n c o m e ,” “ c h a rt e r s e rv ic e ,” and speci fi c chart er dest i nati on s w ere l i st ed thr ou gh ou tJohn ny R eb’s pr ofi t -and-l oss s t at ement s . Further , i t s f eder al t ax r eturns f

orthe yea r s 2005, 20 06 , 2 007, and 2008 ea ch i nd i cat ed Joh nn y R eb w as a “chart er” busi ness, and each d epreci at ed the value of the airplanes,
c o n s is te n t w ith th e p la n e s b e in g u s e d fo r c h a rt e r s e rv ic e s . ¶8. T he audi t oral s o r evi ew ed J ohnny R eb’ s oper at i on agr eement , w hi ch s t at ed J ohnny R eb
w as “bei ng f

orm ed t o oper at e a ge ner al avi at i on busi nes s thatw i l l pr ovi de ai rtr ans port at i on

### 4

forvari ou s busi nesses and indi vidual s. ” A nd the w ebsi t e f or M assey’ s r el at ed farm bu si ness, L yndal e Farm s , advert i s ed J ohnny Reb as “ an ai r l i ne l eas i ng bus i nes s ” and l i s t ed i nf orm at i on aboutthe cos tof

l eas i ng the pl anes b ut di d no tm ent i on the s al es pr i ces of the ai r cr af

t . T he audi t oral s o not ed thatJ ohnny R eb’ s i ns ur ance pol i cy cl ai m ed the cove r ed ai r cr af tw er e t o be f l ow n forper s onal use. Fr om al l of thi s evi dence , the audi t orconcl uded J ohnny R eb had be en us i ng i t s pl anes fornon-s al es - r el at ed f l i ght s , subj ect i ng each pl ane t o a thr ee- per centus e t ax to ta lin g $ 1 3 8 ,4 7 0 . See M is s . C o d e A n n . § 2 7 -6 7 -5 ; M is s . C o d e A n n . § 2 7 -6 5 -1 7 (d ). ¶9. Jo h n n y R eb appealed t o M D O R ’s B oard of R eview . A ft er a h ea ri n g , the B o ard af f i rm ed the as s es s m ent . J ohnny Reb then appea l ed t o M D O R ’ s f ul l Com m i s s i on, w hi ch l i kew i se af

f i rm ed af t era s econd he ar i ng. M D O R then or der ed J ohnny R eb t o pay the
a s s e s s m e n t, p lu s s ta tu to ry in te re s t— $ 1 6 3 ,3 8 8 to ta l. II. A pp eal andD ecision by Ch an cery Cou rt ¶10. J ohnny R eb pai d M D O R the $168, 388 as s es s m ent under pr ot es t and then per f ect ed an
ap p e a l to th e T a te C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt . See M iss. C o d e A n n . § 2 7 -77 -7(1 ) (R ev . 2 0 1 0 ). In lin e w ith th e p ro c e d u re s o f s e c tio n 2 7 -7 7 -7 (5 ), tri a l w a s h e ld in M a rc h 2 0 1 3 . ¶11. Four m onths l at er , the chance l l or ent er ed hi s opi ni on. I n thi s op i nion, the cha ncel l or sta ted se c tio n 2 7 -7 7 -7 (5 ) g a v e h im th e “ u lti m a te a u th o rity ” to try th e fa c ts. A n d a c c o rd in g to hi m , the f

actual ques t i on he had t o r es ol ve w as “w hether[ J ohnny R eb] w as chart er i ng or l eas i ng ai rpl anes as i t s pr i nci pal bus i nes s . ” A f t erl i s t i ng the f

act s on w hi ch M D O R had r el i ed t o as s es s the us e t ax, the cha ncel l oragr eed that“[ t ] hes e f act s s t andi ng alone and w i thout cl ar i f i cat i on orexpl anat i on by [ J ohnny Reb] i ndi cat ed that[ i t ] i n f actw as a bus i nes s i nvol ved p red o m inan tl y in the ch arteri n g o r l ea sing o f aircraft . ” T h e c h an ce ll o r w e n t e v e n furthe r,

### Accord ingto Massey, aviatio n bu sinesses that offer for-p rofit charter flights must 2 

### op erate un der a set o f more strin gent FAA regulatio ns. 5 s t at i ng that i f

one w er e “t o s i m pl y l ook atthe w r i tt en r epr es ent at i ons of w ebs i t es , oper at i ng agr eement s , t a x r e turns [ , ] a ndi ns ur ance pol i ci es , perhaps no otherconcl us i on coul d be r eac hed than thatw hi ch [ M D O R ] r eac hed. ” ¶12. B utthe cha ncel l ors ai d he ha d nots i m pl y r el i ed on thes e document s . I ns t ead, he had “pee l ed bac k the oni on” and l i s t ened t o J ohnny Reb’ s “ cl ar i f i cat i on and expl anat i on” of w hy

— contr ary t o i t s ow n r ecor ds

— i t s only a ct i ons w er e t o m arketand s el l ai rpl anes . M as s ey expl ai ned the oper at i ng agr eementcont ai ned a “mi s t ake”

— thati ts houl d neverhave s t at ed the purpos e of

the busi nes s w as t o provi de chart er ed f l i ght s . H e t es t i f

i ed he had as ked the att orney w h o prep are d th e ag ree m en t to co rrect i t, bu t for so m e u n ex p lai n ed reaso n , no ch an g es w ere e v e r m a d e . T h e fe d era l t ax return s w ere also all eg ed ly w ron g , b ase do n a fa il u re to c o mm u n i c a t e wi th th e c e rt i f i e d p u b l i c a c c o u n t a n twh o h a d p r e p a r e d th e m. Bu tb y th e t i me M asse y rea li ze d w h at th e C P A h ad d o n e, he o p ted n o t t o fi le co rrected return s sinc e the re w oul d have been no di f

f er ence i n the amountof

f eder al t axes a s s es s ed. J ohnny R eb’ s gener al ledg er a n d inv o ices, w h ich h ad b ee n fil led o u t by the c o m p an y ’s i n -ho u se b o o k k ee p er, w ere al s o s up po s e dl y i nc orr e c t . So w a s the Lyn da l e Fa rms w e bs i t e , whi c h ha d be e n c r e a t e d by M a s s e y ’s fa th e r- in -l a w . ¶13. M as s ey w as equ al l y adamant J ohnny R eb coul d not have oper at ed f or - pr of i tchart er f l i ght s , becaus e thatw oul d have vi ol at ed Feder al A vi at i on A dm i ni s tr at i on ( FA A ) r es tr i ct i ons on ai rpl ane de al er s . R ather, h e ins i s t ed al l the f l i ght s l ogged i n the gene r al l edgerand 2 i nvoi ces w er e i n f

urther ance of

s el l i ng the pl anes , even though the l edger and i nvoi ces

### Eq uifax, Inc. dealt with a previ ous vers ion of se ction 27- 77-7. In that

ver si on, the 3 

### re levant judicial-review l anguage wa s c odif ie d in subse ction (4) but hassincebeen renumberedas sub section(5). CompareEquif ax, Inc
. , 12 5 S o. 3 d at 41 (¶8) (qu otin g M iss. Co de Ann . § 2 7-7 7-7 (4) (R ev. 2 00 5)), wit h Miss. C od e Ann. § 27 -77 -7(5 ) (Rev . 20 10 ). 6 e v id e n c e d o th e rw is e . ¶14. I n the end, the chanc el l or concluded that J ohnny R eb onl y “[ u] nder extr emel y l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s ” tr ans port ed pas s enger s f orhi r e. B uthe agr eed w i th M as s ey thatthe “purpos e” of Johnny Reb ’ s bu s i ne s s w a s t o s e l l a i r c r a f t , ha vi ng be e n mos tpe r s ua de d b y the t e s t i mony ab o u t th e F A A re stric tio n s. T h u s, th e c h a n c e llo r d e c la re d th e u se tax e rro n e o u s. A m o n th la te r, th e c h a n c e llo r e n te re d h is fi n a l o rd e r v a c a tin g th e a s s e s s m e n t. ¶ 1 5 . M D O R tim e ly ap p e a le d . D i s cus s i on ¶16. O n app eal , w e fi nd the M i s s i s s i ppi Supr eme C ourt ’ s r ece ntopi ni on Equi f ax, I nc. v. Mis s is s i ppiD epartm ent of

R eve nue , 125 So. 3d 36 ( M i s s . 2013) , m andat es r ever s al of the
c h a n c e llo r’ s d e c is io n . I . Chancer

y Court ’s R ole on A

ppeal ¶17. I n hi s opi ni on, the chanc el l or had des cr i bed hi s r ol e as appel l at e arbi t erunde rs ect i on 27- 77- 7 as thatof

the “ul t i m at e author i ty” on the f actual que s t i on “ w hether[ J ohnny R eb] w as chart er i ng orl eas i ng ai rpl anes as i t s pr i nci pal bus i nes s . ” B uti n E qui f ax, I nc. — w hi ch w as handed dow n af

t erthe cha ncel l orhad ent er ed hi s opi ni on butbef or e he e nt er ed hi s f

i nal
or der

— the s upr eme courtc l ar i f i ed thatac hance l l ormustgi ve def er ence t o M D O R ’ s deci s i on, ju s t a s it m u s t to a n y o th e r a g e n c y d e c is io n . E qui f ax, I nc. , 1 2 5 S o . 3 d a t 4 2 (¶ 9 ). ¶18. W hi l e s ect i on 27- 77- 7( 5) di r ect s the chancery courtt o “gi ve def er ence t o the deci s i on” 3

### See no te 3, sup ra . 4 

### 7 o f th e M D O R , italso instructs the co u rtto “try th e c ase d e n o v o an d co n d u ct a fu llev iden ti ary j ud i ci al heari ng on the i ssues rai sed. ” T his l ang uag e has un derst and ably l ed m any chan cel l ors, in c lu d in g th e p re se n t o n e , to b e liev e th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt sh o u ldre try th e u n d e rly in g fa c ts su p p o rt ing /con tr ad ict ing the a sses sm en t w ith n o d efe ren ce to M D O R ’s c o n clus ion . H o w ev er, i n E qui f ax, I nc. , the s up rem e co urtr es ol ved the “di s agr eement. . . overthe pr act i cal
ap p lic a tio n ” o f th is se e m in g ly c o n fl ic tin g la n g u a g e . E qui f ax, I nc. , 125 So. 3d at41 ( ¶8) . T he
s upr eme courtexpr es s l y r ej ect ed the not i on thatsect i on 27-77- 7( 5) s om ehow gi ves the 4
c h a n c e ry c o u rtau th o ri ty to “ a d ju d ic a te th e w is d o m /s a g e n e s s o f th e a g e n c y ’ s d e c is io n [.]” E qui f ax, I nc. , 1 2 5 S o . 3 d at 41 (¶8 ). ¶1 9 . In ste a d , th e s u p rem e c o u rtm ad e c lear tha t a ch an ce ry c o u rt ’s ap p ell ate fu n cti o n “is l i m i t ed t o exami ni ng the l egal i ty of the dec i s i on. ” I

d. T he s upr eme courtthen l i s t ed the f our bas es upon w hi ch cha ncel l or s m ay dec l ar e an M D O R de ci s i on i l l egal

— the deci s i on w as ( 1)
uns upport ed by s ubs t ant i al e vi dence , ( 2) a rbi tr ary a nd c apr i ci ous , ( 3) be yond the pow erof the admi ni s tr at i ve age ncy t o m ake, or( 4) i n vi ol at i on of the pet i t i oner ’ s s t atut ory orcons t i tut i onal rig h t. Id
. ( ci t i ng B u

ff ing ton v. Miss. S tate T

a x C o m m ’n , 43 S o. 3d 45 0, 45 3-54 (¶12 ) ( M i ss. 2 0 1 0 )). H ere , w h il e the ch an ce ll o r’s fi n al ord er track ed the lan g u ag e o f E qui f ax, I nc. and
s ta te d th a t h e fo u n d M D O R ’s a s s e s s m e n t “ u n s u p p o rt e d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a n d . . . a rb itrary a n d c ap ric io u s,” it i s c lea r fro m h is p re v io u sly e n te re d o p in io n th a t h is d e c isio n to
r ever s e the as s es s m entw as bas ed on hi s ow n di s agr eementw i th the “w i s dom / s agene s s ” of M D O R ’s d e c is io n
— n o t h is fi n d in g th e d e c is io n w a s ille g a l. I I . Substantial

E vidence Suppor ting M D OR ’s D eci

s ion

### 8

¶20 . B ase d o n the c han cel l or’ s ow n ackn ow l edg m ent of the rec o rd e v iden ce , M D O R ’s deci s i on t o as s es s a us e t ax w as nei theruns upport ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence norarbi tr ary and
c ap ri c io u s . “ S u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e ” r e f e r s t o “ m o re th a n a ‘m e re s c in tilla ’ o r s u s p ic io n .” W ri gh tv. P ub
. E m

ps. R et . Sys. of Miss. , 24 S o. 3 d 38 2, 386 (¶ 17) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009) ( ci t at i on om i tt ed) . A nd her e, M D O R di d notbas e i t s concl us i on tha tJ ohnny R eb w as chart er i ng ai rpl anes i tw as tryi ng t o s el l on m er e s us pi ci on. R ather , i tba s ed i t s conclus i on on a v ariety o f sep ara tel y so u rce d ev ide n c e— inclu d ing Jo h n n y R eb ’s i n v o ices, ge n era l l ed g er, fe d e ra l tax re tu rn s, o p e ra tin g a g re e m e n t, an d fin a n c ial s tate m e n ts. T h e s e d o c u m e n ts a ll
s how ed J ohnny Reb w as both c hart er i ng a nd us i ng the pl anes f ori t s m ember s ’ per s onal us e. ¶ 2 1 . It is tru e tha t Jo h n n y R e b o ffe re d the ch a n c e llo r ex p lan a tio n s w h y tho se d o c u m e n ts d id notacc ur at el y r ef

l ectw hati thad re al l y been doi ng w i th i t s ai rpl anes . B utthe exi s t ence of an al t ernat e expl anat i on orconclus i on does notr enderM D O R ’ s det erm i nat i on “arbi tr ary or capr i ci ous . ” A n “arbi tr ary” dec i s i on is “notdone ac cor di ng t o r eas on orj udgm ent , but dependi ng on the w i l l al one. ” I d. at388 ( ¶29) . A “capr i ci ous ” dec i s i on i s s i m i l ar l y done “w i thoutr eas on. ” I

d. A nd h ere, ev en the ch ancell or agreed that M D O R had reas on t o assess the us e t ax. T he cha ncel l orhad f ound that“[ u] nderextr emel y l i m i t ed ci r cumst ance s , [ J ohnny R eb] di d i n f

acttr ans portpas s enger s f orhi re. ” S o based on the chancel l or ’ s ow n f actual f i ndi ngs , the us e- t ax as s es s m entw as nota rbi tr ary, c apr i ci ous , oruns upport ed by s ubs t ant i al
e v id e n c e . II I. N o “ Prin c ip a l-B u sin e ss ”o r “Fo r-P ro fit” R e q u ire m e n ts in U

se -T axSta tu te ¶22. T he pr i m ary r eas on the cha ncel l orr ej ect ed the i m pos i t i on of the use t ax w as that he had d e te rm in e d th a t tra n s p o rt in g p a s s e n g e rs fo r h ir e w a s n o t J o h n n y R e b ’s “ p ri n c ip a l b u s in e s s .”

### 9

B u t i m p o s itio n o f th e u s e -t a x s ta tu te is n o t lim ite d to “ p ri n c ip a l- b u s in e s s ” u s e . See M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 67
- 5. M D O R has ne ve ra s s e rt e d J oh nn y Reb ’ s pr i nc i pa l bu s i ne s s w a s c ha rt e r i ng flig h ts b u t i n stead freely c o n ce d es th at Jo h n n y R eb w as in b u sine ss to se llp lane s. S ti ll , b e c a u s e J o h n n y R e b , b e fo re s e llin g th e p la n e s , us ed them forchart er s and per s onal use, i thad to p a y a u s e ta x . ¶23. T he ch ancell or al so rel i ed heav i l y on the F A A ai rpl ane- deal err egul at i ons , w hi ch pr ohi bi tf

or - pr of i tf l i ght s , concludi ng Johnny R eb w oul d nothave us ed i t s pl anes i n vi ol at i on o f th e F A A . B u t M D O R h as n ev er s u g g ested Jo h n n y R eb w as v iolati n g F A A ru les. R athe r, M D O R has m ai nt ai ned thatthes e f eder al re gul at i ons ar e i rr el evantt o w hetherthe sta te us e- t ax is ap p ro p ri a te . ¶ 2 4 . W e a g re e w ith M D O R . Ju st a s th e re is n o “ p rin c ip a l-b u sin e ss ” re q u ire m e n t, th e re is
a ls o n o “ fo r- p ro fi t” r e q u ir e m e n t i n th e u s e -t a x s ta tu te . See M i s s . Code A nn. § 27- 67- 5. T hat J ohnny R eb mai nt ai ns i ts tr i ct l y compl i ed w i th FA A rul es and nevere arned a pr of i tof f of any o f its flig h ts d o e s n o t m e a n it n e v e r u se d its p la n e s in a m a n n e r th a t su b jec ted th e p lan e s to M issi ssipp i’ s u se tax . E v iden ce o f an y n o n -sales-related u se— w h ethe r pe rson al or fo r a ch arter i n w h ich J o h n n y R eb o n ly rec o u p e d it s o p era ti n g co sts— w o u ld su ffi cien tl y justi fy M D O R ’ s us e- t ax as s es s m ent . A nd as w e have al r eady s t at ed, ther e w as s ubs t ant i al evi dence
o f s u c h u s e . C oncl usi on ¶25. O ur r evi ew s how s J ohnny R eb gave m ul t i pl e i ndi cat i ons that i t w as us i ng the ai rpl anes i tw as tryi ng t o s el l f

orchart er s and per s onal us e. So M D O R ’ s deci s i on thatJ ohnny R eb
s houl d be t axed forchart er i ng and us i ng the pl anes f orper s onal bus i nes s w as r eas onabl e,

### 10

supp ort ed, and thu s not s ubj ectt o rever sal on app eal t o the ch ancery co urt . W e thu s r everse th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt’s d e c isio n a n d re in sta te M D O R ’s ta x a ss e ss m e n t. ¶ 2 6 . T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E T A T E C O U N T Y C H A N C E R Y C O U R T IS REVERSED AND REN DERED. ALL CO S TS O F THI S APPEAL ARE AS S ES S ED TO THE APPEL LEE. I RVI NG AND GRI F F I S , P . J J . , BA RNE S , I S HEE , ROBE RT S , F AI R AND J AM ES , JJ . , CO NCU R. CAR LTON, J . , DI S S ENTS W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . L E E , C. J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .