Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. First Nat. Bank Trust Co.

6 Citing cases

  1. Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Tax Com'n

    792 P.2d 87 (Okla. Civ. App. 1990)   Cited 3 times

    While the Commission stated that the formula was widely used throughout the United States and had been used in Oklahoma for seventeen years, the formula is neither codified in statute nor listed in published regulations in any form. In Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. First National Bank Trust Co., 178 Okla. 260, 62 P.2d 1220 (1936), and its companion cases, the court held that the Commission may not apply an arbitrary formula fixing percentages of expenses to be allowed or disallowed without regard to the actual facts of the case. In so holding, the court stated.

  2. Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. Okla. Nat. Bank of Chickasha

    62 P.2d 1225 (Okla. 1936)

    WELCH, J. This case was argued and submitted with cause No. 26011, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. First National Bank of Oklahoma City, this day decided, 178 Okla. 260, 62 P.2d 1220. The pleadings of the parties, the judgment rendered, and the questions here presented are substantially the same. The Tax Commission's brief in cause No. 26011 is by specific request treated as its brief in this case.

  3. Oklahoma Tax Commission v. Tradesmen's Nat. Bank

    62 P.2d 1223 (Okla. 1936)

    WELCH, J. This case was argued and submitted with cause No. 26011, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. First National Bank of Oklahoma City, this day decided, 178 Okla. 260, 62 P.2d 1220. The pleadings of the parties, the judgment rendered, and the questions here presented are substantially the same. The Tax Commission's brief in cause No. 26011, is by specific request treated as its brief in this case.

  4. Oklahoma Tax Comission v. Liberty Nat. Bank

    62 P.2d 1226 (Okla. 1936)

    WELCH, J. This cause was argued and submitted with cause No. 26011, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. First National Bank of Oklahoma City, this day decided, 178 Okla. 260, 62 P.2d 1220; the only difference being that a cross-petition in error directs our attention to the fact that the court did not include judgment for interest at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum from date of the payment under protest. The pleadings of the parties, the judgment rendered, and the questions here presented are substantially the same.

  5. Oklahoma Tax Comm. v. First Nat. Bk. Mangum

    62 P.2d 1224 (Okla. 1936)

    WELCH, J. This case was argued and submitted with cause No. 26011, Oklahoma Tax Commission v. First National Bank of Oklahoma City, this day decided 178 Okla. 260, 62 P.2d 1220. The pleadings of the parties, the judgment rendered, and the questions here presented are substantially the same. The Tax Commission's brief in cause No. 26011 is by specific request treated as its brief in this case.

  6. EL PASO NATURAL GAS v. OKL. TAX COM'N

    929 P.2d 1002 (Okla. Civ. App. 1996)   Cited 6 times

    Thus it can be said OTC's decision was interpretive and quasi-judicial, and properly done through its order. El Paso and Anson rely on the following statement in Fort Howard Paper Co. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 792 P.2d 87, 90 (Okla.Ct.App. 1989), citing Oklahoma Tax Commission v. First National Bank Trust Co. of Oklahoma City, 178 Okla. 260, 62 P.2d 1220 (1936): "[T]he Commission may not apply an arbitrary formula fixing percentages of expenses to be allowed or disallowed without regard to the actual facts of the case." However, the record reveals OTC based its figures on the actual facts of the case, using El Paso's own figures.