Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 32 Chapter 233
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 9702 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 001 : GENERAL PROVISIONS

(Cite as: 32 V.S.A. § 9702)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1980–1982 · leading case: State v. Buck, 428 A.2d 1090 (Vt. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Buck, 428 A.2d 1090 (Vt. 1981). · cites it 3× “The evidence established not only the appointments of Gray and Beeman, but their authorization to perform the audit in question.”
Rowe-Genereux, Inc. v. Dep't of Taxes, 411 A.2d 1345 (Vt. 1980). “Assessment of Interest, Penalties, and Late Filing Fees Rowe further contends that if this Court finds that the use tax was properly collectible, the assessment of interest, penalties and late filing fees should not be upheld. This Court has previously held that the authority of…”
Bud Crossman Plumbing & Heating v. Comm'r of Taxes, 455 A.2d 799 (Vt. 1982). “First, he claims the statute requires that the certificate be signed by the Commissioner and since *191 they were, instead, signed by the Director, it was error to admit them.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 9702(a) — 3 cases
State v. Buck, 428 A.2d 1090 (Vt. 1981). “The evidence established not only the appointments of Gray and Beeman, but their authorization to perform the audit in question.”
Rowe-Genereux, Inc. v. Dep't of Taxes, 411 A.2d 1345 (Vt. 1980). “Assessment of Interest, Penalties, and Late Filing Fees Rowe further contends that if this Court finds that the use tax was properly collectible, the assessment of interest, penalties and late filing fees should not be upheld. This Court has previously held that the authority of…”
Bud Crossman Plumbing & Heating v. Comm'r of Taxes, 455 A.2d 799 (Vt. 1982). “First, he claims the statute requires that the certificate be signed by the Commissioner and since *191 they were, instead, signed by the Director, it was error to admit them.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 9702(c) — 1 case
State v. Buck, 428 A.2d 1090 (Vt. 1981). “The evidence established not only the appointments of Gray and Beeman, but their authorization to perform the audit in question.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.