Court Opinion

ID: 9691429
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:31:42.303979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:19.524016
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

In a motion for rehearing, filed per Rule 84.17(a)(1), Taxpayers allege, inter alia, *384that this court misstated the record when we wrote, “Taxpayers never injected the ‘lack of authority1 issue into the case in any fashion before the STC rendered its decision.” Technically, Taxpayers are correct. They did raise the “lack of authority” before the STC handed down its decision. As Taxpayers fully admit in their motion for rehearing, however, the first time they raised the issue was on November 28, 2000. This was over one month after the evidentiary hearing, but before the STC rendered its decision. It appears that Taxpayers addressed the issue only as an afterthought, or purposely waited until after the hearing so that Snider could not present evidence to rebut the allegation. In either event, Taxpayers did not timely inject the lack of authority claim into the case, i.e., before or during the evidentiary hearing at a time when Snider could have responded with evidence. Accordingly, we stand by our holding, namely, that Taxpayers cannot “sandbag” Snider, the STC, and this court by raising the issue as a post-hearing claim.
Taxpayers’ motion for rehearing is denied.