Court Opinion

ID: 9833781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 23:01:13.686474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:06.669120
License: Public Domain

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.
Appellant in its motion for rehearing questions the accuracy of the statement in our opinion on rehearing to the effect that we were unable to tell from the record whether the amount paid covered all the tax due except that involved in the difference between 40 per cent, and the basis of assessment on the intangibles and rolling stock.
It may be correct that the record presents the basis for making proper calculation. If we were not reversing the case on the other grounds stated in our opinion on rehearing, we would examine the record more carefully upon this issue. In this connection it may be noted that the amount which the trial court found to be still due was $3,051; whereas, the trial court found that the valuations above 40 per cent, of the rolling stock and intangibles only amounted to a gross tax of $1,166. We had before us these findings when we wrote the opinion on rehearing, and they seemed to accord with the statement in the argument by appellee’s counsel pointed out in our opinion on rehearing. Since we are remanding the case generally on the other grounds stated in our opinion for rehearing, we will make no further examination of the record to determine the correctness of the trial court’s above findings. The motion for rehearing is overruled.
Overruled.