Case Name: AMPLICON, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 2000-03-10
Citations: 19 N.J. Tax 45
Docket Number: 
Parties: AMPLICON, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Tax Court Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 45–46

Head Matter:
AMPLICON, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DIRECTOR, NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF TAXATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued February 23, 2000
Decided March 10, 2000.
Before Judges LANDAU and CIANCIA.
Robert C. Hess, for appellant, (Harold Leib & Associates, attorneys; Harold Leib, on the brief).
Carol Johnston, for respondent, Deputy Attorney General, (,John J. Fanner, Attorney General, attorney; Many C. Jacobson, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Ms. Johnston, on the brief).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In this appeal from a Tax Court order dismissing its complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, R. 4:6—2(a), appellant Amplicon, Inc., contends that the Court misinterpreted and improperly applied statutory provisions respecting refund of sales and use tax payments. It contends, too, that equitable principles should have been applied to toll statutory limitation periods enabling it to request relief from asserted sales tax overpayments made following an audit conducted under the authority of respondent, the Director, New Jersey Division of Taxation.
Upon review of the record and consideration of the briefs and oral arguments, we are satisfied that the order under review should be affirmed, substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Small in his comprehensive .written opinion dated September 18, 1998, as supplemented, following our limited remand, by his letter opinion of March 11,1999.
Affirmed.