Court Opinion

ID: 9537121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:12:45.23618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:05.364552
License: Public Domain

DONALDSON, Justice
(concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I concur in all of the majority opinion except that portion which holds that no part of the deficiency is barred by the three year Statute of Limitations. I agree with the majority opinion that the statutory language of I.C. § 63-3633 is illogical and absurd. It should be remembered that in construing Statute of Limitations, the statute should be construed in favor of the taxpayer. State v. State Board of Equalization, 319 P.2d 221 (Mont.1957). From the record, it appears that the appellant was advised of the position of the respondents as early as January 21, 1970, that they owed no use tax. The matter should be remanded to the district court for its determination as to when the appellant had knowledge of respondents’ position and what portion of the deficiency is barred by the Statute of Limitations.