On a motion in a retail sales tax appeal, the moving party sought to restrict the responding party to arguing only the issue expressly raised in its Notice of Objection, namely whether premiums paid under a health and welfare plan attracted retail sales tax.
The responding party argued the court could permit amendments and should allow a fuller factual record, including matters such as due diligence and penalty, to properly frame the appeal.
The court held that fairness required a complete factual record so that any necessary determinations could be made in the interests of justice.
The motion to restrict the grounds of appeal was dismissed, with costs reserved to the hearing judge.
