Petition with Decision Document.pdf
Rim 4 Group LLC Petitioner Vs. Michigan Department Of Treasury Respondent · 26-002714-TT
Text extracted from the reviewed PDF, organized by page. OCR and reading order may contain errors; confirm details in the PDF below.
Page 1
________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ STATE OF MICHIGAN GRETCHEN WHITMER DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS MARLON I. BROWN, DPA GOVERNOR LANSING DIRECTOR _____________________________, Petitioner(s) MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL v MTT Docket No. _____________________________, Respondent(s) ENTIRE TRIBUNAL NON-PROPERTY TAX PETITION 1. Assessment No: ___________________________________________________ 2. The type of tax at issue is 3. This appeal involves issues relating to the (check all that are applicable): ________ Tax ________ Interest ________ Penalty ________ Refund of tax in the amount of $_____________ 4. The action that prompted this appeal is 5. Petitioner’s legal residence or principal office address is: 6. The amounts as assessed are: Tax Interest Penalties MICHIGAN TAX TRIBUNAL · 611 W. OTTAWA ST., LANSING, MI 48933 · 517-335-9760 PO BOX 30232, LANSING, MI 48909 · Other Carriers: 2407 N. GRAND RIVER AVE., LANSING, MI 48906 RIM 4 GROUP, LLC DCT MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY 1894306 SALES AND USE TAX X X X DECISION AND ORDER OF DETERMINATION DATED MAY 19, 2026 FROM AN INFORMAL CONFERENCE (COPY ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A) 6230 NORTH SERVICE DRIVE, WATERFORD, MICHIGAN 48327 $279,000.00 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
Page 2
MTT Docket No. - --- -- Page 2 of 2 7. Petitioner contends that the assessment should be as follows: $0.00 I Interest $0.00 I Penalties 8. The values in dispute are: Tax Interest Penalties $279,000.00 UNKNOWN UNKNOWN 9. Petitioner requests the following relief (attach additional page if necessary): ________________________ _ FIND THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE AIRCRAFT IS EXEMPT FROM BOTH SALES AND USE TAX PURSUANT TO 10. List the separate and specific facts upon which Petitioner relies to support the relief requested (attach additional page if necessary): SEE ATTACHED Signature:'cifP""·it-t~A~~orized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: _, / :;.i;.--s<~~I 1-1:(lJ..!.!, _______ / ' Printed Name of Petitioner's Authorized Representative or, if none, Petitioner: STUART LEE SHERMAN Email Address: STUART.SHERMAN @SBCGLOBAL.NET Mailing Address: STUART LEE SHERMAN, PC, 3707 WEST MAPLE ROAD, SUITE 302, BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MICHIGAN 48301 Telephone Number: _2_48_-6_3_1-_49_6_5 ____ ________________ _ Date: JULY 19, 2026
Page 3
1. A 2002 Cessna Model 560 XL aircraft was purchased by RIM 4 Group, LLC on February 26, 2025 for the sole purpose of leasing said airplane to DCT Air, LLC, a Domestic Air Carrier as such term is defined in MCL §205.54x(5)(c) and which is a registered air carrier with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 2. The aircraft was leased to DCT Air, LLC from RIM 4 Group, LLC under an Aircraft Operating Lease Agreement, which provides that DCT Air, LLC is responsible for “all costs, expenses, fees, and charges” for the aircraft. This includes all maintenance costs. 3. On April 21, 2025 the FAA granted RIM 4 Group, LLC a registration certificate for the aircraft. 4. RIM 4 Group, LLC filed Michigan Department of Treasury Form 518 in either late February, 2025 or early March, 2025.
Page 4
Exhibit A
Page 5
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY DECISION AND ORDER OF DETERMINATION RIM 4 Group LLC Docket No. 2026-0051 Michael Khakham Equalization Tax 6230 N Service Drive Intent to Assess: 1894306 Waterford, MI 48327 Tax Period: 04/2025 The Department, having reviewed the recommendation of the Referee in the above captioned matter, and having been advised in the premises; and It appearing that this recommendation is supported by authority and reasoned opinion, and that the same accordingly be accepted; Now therefore it is ordered and determined that Intent to Assess 1894306 is upheld, as originally determined, for tax in the amount of $279,000.00 and statutory interest. It is further ordered and determined that the Departrnent shall issue a final assessment against you for the tax and interest due. The tax due on this assessment will be subject to the accrual of such additional interest as is provided by 1941 PA 122. The final assessment will provide your appeal rights. DATED: MAY 19, 2026 , Ls 4 od a Sopcan \ fol Regina R. Blough, Admihistrator Hearings Division On Behalf of the State Treasurer ie: Stuart Lee Sherman PC Stuart Sherman 3707 West Maple Rd, Ste. 302 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Page 6
STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY RIM 4 Group LLC Docket No. 2026-0051 Michael Khakham Equalization Tax 6230 N Service Drive Intent to Assess: 1894306 Waterford, MI 48327 Tax Period: 04/2025 INFORMAL CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION An informal conference for this matter took place on April 23, 2026, as scheduled. Michael Khakham and Stuart Sherman appeared by telephone on behalf of RIM 4 Group LLC (“Petitioner”). The Michigan Department of Treasury (“Department”) was represented by Franklin Argentine and Lenise Glanton who appeared by video on behalf of the Department’s Discovery and Tax Enforcement Division. FACTS On April 21, 2025, the Federal Aviation Authority (“FAA”) granted Petitioner a registration certificate for the subject aircraft, a 2002 Cessna model 560XL aircraft, registration # N827JN. The FAA later shared information concerning the registration with the Department. On May 27, 2025, the Department issued a Letter of Inquiry Concerning Aircraft in Michigan. The Department enclosed Forms 4281 and 1989 and requested that Petitioner complete and return the forms. The letter indicates, in pertinent part: Why You Are Receiving This Letter The Discovery and Tax Enforcement Division received information from the Federal Aviation Administration that identifies you as registering the aircraft ... in Michigan for the tax period April 2025. Under Michigan's Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Revenue Equalization Act, the tax on the transfer of an aircraft is 6% of the retail dollar value of the aircraft at the time of acquisition as determined by the Michigan Department of Treasury (Treasury). A credit against the tax is allowed for an amount equal to any Use Tax paid by the taxpayer under MCL 205.93 on the purchase price for the same aircraft. How to Respond Complete the Aircraft Transfer Questionnaire (Form 4281) and submit copies of the documentation indicated on the questionnaire. If you do not qualify for an
Page 7
Docket No. 2026-0051 Page 2 of 10 exemption, also complete the Tax Calculation for Nonqualified Aircraft Transfer (Form 1989) to determine the tax due... A written statement without supporting documentation is not acceptable and will not delay issuance of an assessment. Line 6 on Form 4281 indicates, in pertinent part: For tax years that begin after December 31, 2001, in order to make a valid election a lessor of tangible personal property that is an aircraft must obtain a use tax registration by the earlier of: 1. The date set for the first payment of use tax under the lease or rental agreement, or 2. 90 days after the lessor first brings the aircraft into this state If you are claiming to be a lessor of aircraft, please provide all of the following: 1. Copies of all the lease agreements for this aircraft 2. A copy of your Michigan Use Tax Registration 3. Copies of the flight logs for this aircraft 4. Copies of advertisements and/or marketing agreements On July 7, 2025, the Department received the following from Petitioner: e A copy of the Letter of Inquiry eo A letter dated July 3, 2025 e A completed Form 4281 (Aircraft Transfer Questionnaire) e An Aircraft Purchase Agreement dated December 2, 2024, for $4,650,000.00 with Exhibits A and B Petitioner’s letter explained, in pertinent part: It is our position that the purchase of this aircraft is exempt from both sales and use tax pursuant to MCL §205.54x(4) as to sales tax and MCL §205.94(1)(v) as to use tax. The airplane was purchased by [Petitioner] for the sole purpose of leasing said airplane to DCT Air, LLC, a Domestic Air Carrier as such term is defined in MCL §205.54x(5)(c) and which is a registered air carrier with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). It was leased to DCT Air, LLC from [Petitioner] under an Aircraft Operating Lease Agreement, which provides that DCT Air, LLC is responsible for “all costs, expenses, fees, and charges” for the aircraft. This includes all maintenance costs.
Page 8
Docket No. 2026-0051 Page 3 of 10 Petitioner's letter neither indicated Petitioner submitted a Form 518 “Registration for Michigan Taxes” nor enclosed a copy of Petitioner's Form 518. With that letter, Petitioner submitted Form 4281. At Line 6 of Petitioner's Form 4281 — where the Department specifically states “...in order to make a valid election a lessor of tangible personal property that is an aircraft must obtain a use tax registration...” and asks the lessor to provide a copy of their Michigan Use Tax Registration — Petitioner typed on the form “Exempt from Use Tax pursuant to MCL §205.94(1)(v).” Despite filling out that section of the form, Petitioner failed to enclose proof it obtained a use tax registration. On October 31, 2025, the Department issued Intent to Assess 1894306 for tax of $279,000.00 and interest. The Intent explained the Department assessed Petitioner equalization tax under MCL 205.179 based on the retail dollar value of the aircraft at the time of acquisition as listed by the Aircraft Bluebook, less a credit allowed for an amount equal to any use tax paid under MCL 205.93 on the same property. Further, it explained that documentation Petitioner provided was insufficient to prove that the reported sales price was the retail value. On January 5, 2026, the Department received the following from Petitioner: e A Request for Hearing/Informal Conference e A letter dated December 26, 2025, reiterating Petitioner's position e A copy of the Intent to Assess e An Aircraft Purchase Agreement dated December 2, 2024, for $4,650,000.00 with Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, G, H [no Exhibit F] e An Aircraft Operating Lease Agreement dated March 1, 2025, between Petitioner as Owner and DCT Air, LLC as Lessee, and Michael Khakham signing for both entities e An N# Change Request e An Assignment of Special Registration Numbers e An Air Carrier Certificate with an effective date of November 4, 2015 e A printout from the DCT Air website about the entity e A Registration for Michigan Taxes for Petitioner On March 24, 2026, the Department issued a Notice of Assignment to Referee and Informal Conference. During the informal conference, Petitioner reiterated the position it outlined in its letter dated July 3, 2025. During the informal conference, the Department presented its position that the Department must receive a use tax registration (Form 518) within 90 days after an aircraft enters Michigan. Petitioner failed to submit such. Petitioner responded that it sent the required registration to the State timely and the State
Page 9
Docket No. 2026-0051 Page 4 of 10 failed to process it. Petitioner did not learn of the Department's failure to process the registration until the Department denied the use tax exemption in a letter. The Department responded that it did not receive Form 518 and it requires proof Petitioner submitted it. The Registration Form the Department received was dated January 5, 2026 (or 2025)—the Department indicated it is not legible. Petitioner responded that it sent a registration in late February 2025 or early March 2025. Petitioner explained that to a Department representative by telephone or email and the Department representative did not mention the need for that form until after the 90 days expired. The Department responded that it sends a Letter of Inquiry each time it receives information from the FAA indicating a person has been granted an aircraft registration certificate. The letter notifies the taxpayer of the need for use tax registration and other requirements. Petitioner then explained the aircraft at issue here entered Michigan on May 13, 2025, the Department issued the Letter of Inquiry on May 27, 2025, and the two parties communicated back and forth, but it was not until August 20 or August 25, 2025 that the Department representative mentioned to Petitioner that the Department did not receive the required use tax registration. By then, the 90-day requirement had expired. It was an issue in the original filing, yet the Department representative did not raise the issue until August. Petitioner sent the use tax registration in and is not sure what happened to it. Petitioner would not have thought anything of the lack of receipt of a use tax license because Petitioner thought it was exempt from tax. Petitioner does not agree that it should have to register for use tax, but it did so anyhow and then returned to what it does for a living—leasing aircraft. Petitioner's CPA prepared the use tax registration paperwork, Petitioner signed it, and Petitioner sent it in by US Mail. The Hearing Referee established a two-week deadline for Petitioner to submit proof establishing when it submitted its use tax registration to the Department. On April 24, 2026, the Department’s Registration Services confirmed in an email to the Department representative in this matter that a rejected Form 518 from Petitioner does not exist in the Department’s system. Further, Registration Services indicated that if it had received and rejected a Form 518, it would have issued a rejection letter to Petitioner requesting the required documents. On May 6, 2026, the Department received a fax from Petitioner which included the following: e A letter dated December 26, 2025 e An Affidavit from Petitioner's CPA e An Affidavit from the owner of Petitioner
Page 10
Docket No. 2026-0051 Page 5 of 10 The Department reviewed the submission and responded that its position had not changed. ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The issue in this matter is whether Intent to Assess 1894306 should be upheld. The Michigan Use Tax Act (“UTA”), MCL 205.91 et. seq., imposes a 6% tax “for the privilege of using, storing, or consuming tangible personal property in this state...” MCL 205.93(1). MCL 205.93(2) provides that when transferring or registering aircraft, a use tax is due and collected by the Secretary of State. Such tax is derived by multiplying 6% (tax rate) by the price of an aircraft. MCL 205.93(1). The Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Revenue Equalization Act (“Equalization Act”), MCL 205.179, provides that a specific tax applies to persons who register, store, or transfer a non-qualified aircraft in Michigan “at a rate of 6% of the retail value at the time of acquisition.” More specifically, the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Revenue Equalization Act, MCL 205.179, provides: (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), there is levied upon and there shall be collected from every person in this state a specific tax on the privilege of storing, registering, or transferring ownership of any ... aircraft other than a qualified aircraft under section 11...in this state at a rate of 6% of the retail dollar value at the time of acquisition as determined by the department of treasury. The tax shall be paid by the transferee ... The tax on an aircraft shall be paid to the department. (2) A transfer for purposes of resale or a transfer that is exempt under any other exemption under the use tax is exempt from the tax levied under subsection (1). A transfer subject to tax under the general sales tax act is exempt from the tax levied under subsection (1). (3) A credit against the tax levied under subsection (1) is allowed for an amount equal to any use tax paid by the taxpayer on the same property. The credit under this section shall not exceed the tax imposed by this act. Petitioner entered into a purchase agreement for the aircraft on December 2, 2024, for $4,650,000.00 and paid a $100,000.00 deposit. Ownership of the aircraft transferred to Petitioner on February 26, 2025, per the FAA Aircraft Bill of Sale on which Petitioner indicated a Michigan address. The subject aircraft was registered in Michigan and is not a qualified aircraft, per the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Revenue Equalization Act.
Page 11
Docket No. 2026-0051 Page 6 of 10 The issue in this matter is whether Petitioner may report and pay use tax on the rental receipts from the rental of the aircraft. The Use Tax Act, at MCL 205.92(1)(b), broadly defines “use” as “the exercise of a right or power over tangible personal property incident to the ownership of that property including transfer of the property in a transaction where possession is given.” On March 1, 2025, Petitioner entered into an Aircraft Operating Lease Agreement that granted exclusive rights to the aircraft to another entity in exchange for lease payments and both parties reported a Michigan address on the Aircraft Operating Lease Agreement. Petitioner used the aircraft in Michigan, per MCL 205.92(1)(b), and was subject to use tax under MCL 205.93(1). Petitioner is liable for use tax to the State of Michigan unless it establishes the right to exemption. The Use Tax Act, at MCL 205.95; (1) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection or subsection (5), a person engaged in the business of selling tangible personal property for storage, use or other consumption in this state shall register with the department. Every seller shall source sles in accordance with [MCL 205.110] and collect the tax imposed by this act from the consumer. * kk (4) A lessor may elect to pay use tax on receipts from the rental or lease of the tangible personal property in lieu of payment of sales or use tax on the full cost of the property at the time it is acquired. For tax years that begin after December 31, 2001, in order to make a valid election under this subsection, a lessor of tangible personal property that is an aircraft shall obtain a use tax registration by the earlier of the date set for the first payment of use tax under the lease or rental agreement or 90 days after the lessor first brings the aircraft into this state. The statute clearly indicates that a lessor must either elect to pay use tax on rental receipts or pay sales or use tax on the full cost of the property at the time it is acquired. To make a valid election, an aircraft lessor “shall” obtain a use tax registration by the earlier of two dates: the date set for the first payment of use tax under the lease agreement or 90 days after the lessor first brings the aircraft into Michigan. And Mich Admin Code, R 205.132 (Rule 82) reiterates that a person engaged in the business of renting or leasing tangible personal property to others shall pay the Michigan sales or use tax at the time the person purchases the property, or the person may report and pay use tax on the
Page 12
Docket No. 2026-0051 Page 7 of 10 rental receipts from the rental thereof. Revenue Administrative Bulletin (“RAB”) 2023-13 entitled “Sales and Use Taxes — Lessors” provides guidance concerning when lessees and lessors are liable for use tax on lease transactions and explains the sales and use tax treatment of tangible personal property acquired for lease or rental. The RAB explains that, to make the election to pay on rental receipts, the lessor must satisfy each of the following requirements in accordance with MCL 205.92(h), MCL 205.95(1), Mich Admin Code, R 205.132, and Devonair Enterprises, LLC v Dep't of Treasury, 297 Mich App 90 (2012): e The lessor must be in the business of leasing, which requires a profit motive e The transaction must involve the rental of tangible personal property (as opposed to the provision of a service) e The lessor must register with the Department to pay use tax unless the lessor already holds a sales tax license Despite the requirement outlined in both MCL 205.95(1) and RAB 2023-13 that a person must register with the Department to pay use tax, Petitioner has not proven it registered with the Department to pay use tax. With its Letter of Inquiry Concerning Aircraft in Michigan dated May 27, 2025, the Department enclosed Forms 4281 and 1989 and requested that Petitioner complete and return the forms. Form 4281 indicates, in pertinent part: For tax years that begin after December 31, 2001, in order to make a valid election a lessor of tangible personal property that is an aircraft must obtain a use tax registration by the earlier of: 1. The date set for the first payment of use tax under the lease or rental agreement, or 2. 90 days after the lessor first brings the aircraft into this state If you are claiming to be a lessor of aircraft, please provide all of the following: 1. Copies of all the lease agreements for this aircraft 2. A copy of your Michigan Use Tax Registration 3. Copies of the flight logs for this aircraft 4. Copies of advertisements and/or marketing agreements Petitioner responded on July 7, 2025, with some of the documents the Department requested, but not the Michigan Use Tax Registration required by Michigan statute. Petitioner's letter neither indicated Petitioner submitted a Form 518 “Registration for Michigan Taxes” nor enclosed a copy of Petitioner's Form 518. With that letter, Petitioner submitted Form 4281. At Line 6 of Petitioner's Form 4281 — where
Page 13
Docket No. 2026-0051 Page 8 of 10 the Department specifically states “...in order to make a valid election a lessor of tangible personal property that is an aircraft must obtain a use tax registration...” and asks the lessor to provide a copy of their Michigan Use Tax Registration — Petitioner typed on the form “Exempt from Use Tax pursuant to MCL §205.94(1)(v).” Despite filling out that section of the form, Petitioner failed to enclose Form 518. Petitioner failed to provide a United States Postal Service proof of delivery showing that Form 518 was mailed by the CPA to Petitioner and/or that Form 518 was mailed by Petitioner to the Department. Further, no corroborating communications, such as emails between them, were submitted as proof of mailing. Petitioner showed care in submitting numerous other documents in July 2025 but failed to provide either a copy of the Form 518 they allegedly completed and mailed or a copy of their Use Tax Registration, as required by Michigan law. On January 5, 2026, the Department received numerous documents from Petitioner, but Petitioner still failed to submit the Michigan Use Tax Registration required by Michigan statute. After the informal conference, the Department received two Affidavits indicating Petitioner received the Form 518 from its CPA, completed the form, and placed it in the US Mail addressed to the Department in either late February 2025 or early March 2025. The registration requirements in MCL 205.95(4) and Rule 82 are clear and do not include an element of intent or provide reasonable cause exceptions for untimely compliance. Petitioner did not sufficiently meet the burden of proof here. Further, the Department’s Registration Services confirmed that it did not receive Form 518 from Petitioner and, if it had received and rejected Form 518, it would have issued a rejection letter to Petitioner requesting the required documents. The General Sales Tax Act, at MCL 205.68, provides: (1) A person liable for any tax imposed under this act shall keep in a paper, electronic, or digital format an accurate and complete beginning and annual inventory and purchase records of additions to inventory, complete daily sales records, receipts, invoices, bills of lading, and all pertinent documents in a form the department requires. Except as otherwise provided for a person described under subsection (6), if an exemption from the tax under this act is claimed by a person because the sale is for resale at retail, a record must be kept of the sales tax license number if the person has a sales tax license. These records must be retained for a period of 4 years after the tax imposed under this act to which the records apply is due or as otherwise provided by law. (2) If the department considers it necessary, the department may require a person, by notice served upon that person, to make a return, render under oath certain statements, or keep certain records the department considers
Page 14
Docket No. 2026-0051 Page 9 of 10 sufficient to show whether or not that person is liable for the tax under this act. * % * (4) If a taxpayer fails to file a return or to maintain or preserve sufficient records as prescribed in this section, or the department has reason to believe that any records maintained or returns filed are inaccurate or incomplete and that additional taxes are due, the department may assess the amount of the tax due from the taxpayer based on an indirect audit procedure or any other information that is available or that may become available to the department. That assessment is considered prima facie correct for the purpose of this act and the burden of proof of refuting the assessment is upon the taxpayer. An indirect audit of a taxpayer under this subsection must be conducted in accordance with 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.1 to 205.31, and the standards published by the department under section 21 of 1941 PA 122, MCL 205.21, and must include all of the following elements: (a) A review of the taxpayer's books and records. The department may use an indirect method to test the accuracy of the taxpayer's books and records. (b) Both the credibility of the evidence and the reasonableness of the conclusion must be evaluated before any determination of tax liability is made. (c) The department may use any method to reconstruct income, deductions, or expenses that is reasonable under the circumstances. The department may use third-party records in the reconstruction. (d) The department shall investigate all reasonable evidence presented by the taxpayer refuting the computation. * Xk ok (8) As used in this section: * ok ok (b) "Sufficient records" means records that meet the department's need to determine the tax due under this act. At MCL 205.1044, the Use Tax Act contains a nearly identical provision. It, too, requires records to be kept and indicates Department assessments are considered prima facie correct. The Use Tax Act, at MCL 205.104a allocates the burden of proof to the taxpayer:
Page 15
Docket No. 2026-0051 Page 10 of 10 (4) If a taxpayer fails to file a return or to maintain or preserve sufficient records as prescribed in this section, or the department has reason to believe that any records maintained or returns filed are inaccurate or incomplete and that additional taxes are due, the department may assess the amount of the tax due from the taxpayer based on an indirect audit procedure or any other information that is available or that may become available to the department. That assessment is considered prima facie correct for the purpose of this act and the burden of proof of refuting the assessment is upon the taxpayer... An assessment for use tax, issued by the Department based on available information, is considered prima facie correct and the burden of refuting the assessment is upon the taxpayer. MCL 205.104a(4). Fulfillment of that burden requires proof by preponderance of the evidence. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan v Milliken. 422 Mich 1, 89; 367 NW2d 1 (1985); Aquilina v General Motors Corp, 403 Mich 206, 210-211; 267 NW2d 923 (1978). In this case, Petitioner failed to satisfy its burden of proving that the assessment is erroneous. Proof by a preponderance of the evidence applies to proceedings before an administrative agency. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich v Milliken, 422 Mich 1, 89; 367 NW2d 1 (1985); Aquilina v Gen Motors Corp, 403 Mich 206, 210-11; 267 NW2d 923 (1978). This standard requires that the fact-finder believe that the evidence supporting the existence of the contested fact outweighs the evidence supporting its nonexistence. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 422 Mich at 89. The burden of proof in this matter was on Petitioner and Petitioner did not meet it. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Intent to Assess 1894306 be upheld, as originally determined, for tax in the amount of $279,000.00 and interest. Respectfully submitted, Kimberly B. Burzych, Referee Hearings Division