ARNOLD v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION

OSCN Found Document:ARNOLD et al. v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION ARNOLD et al. v. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION 2026 OK CIV APP 26 Case Number: 123451 Decided: 06/23/2026 Mandate Issued: 07/30/2026 COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, DIVISION III Cite as: 2026 OK CIV APP 26 , __ P.3d __ IN THE MATTER OF THE INCOME TAX PROTEST OF RODNEY B. AND DEBORAH S. ARNOLD, RODNEY B. ARNOLD AND DEBORAH S. ARNOLD, Protestants/Appellants, vs. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, Respondent/Appellee. PROCEEDING TO REVIEW AN ORDER OF A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION REVERSED Sherri Carver, CARVER LAW OFFICE PLLC, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Protestants/Appellants, Elizabeth Field, Daron Southerland, Jessica Haney, OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, For Respondent/Appellee. THOMAS E. PRINCE, VICE-CHIEF JUDGE: ¶1 Rodney and Deborah Arnold (Protestants/Appellants) appeal the Oklahoma Tax Commission's (Respondent/Appellee) Order denying the Arnolds' Income Tax Protests for the 2016 and 2017 tax years. The Arnolds protested the Commission's denial of their tax refunds for the 2016 and 2017 tax years after the Commission determined the Arnolds' requested refunds were filed outside of the three (3) year limitation period imposed by 68 O.S. § 2373 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. & Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32 512 P.3d 333 BACKGROUND ¶ 2 The Arnolds initiated the underlying administrative action upon their protest of the Commission's denial of the Arnolds' refunds from the 2016 and 2017 tax years. The administrative record reflects, in relevant part, that the Arnolds made estimated tax payments through the course of the 2016 and 2017 tax years which resulted in substantial overpayment of both years' tax liabilities. The Arnolds' estimated payments generated an overpayment of $188,071.00 for the 2016 tax year and $244,482.00 for the 2017 tax year. Although the Arnolds made incremental payments during the 2016 and 2017 tax years, the Arnolds did not file their 2016 and 2017 Form 511 Oklahoma Tax Returns until October 15, 2020, and October 15, 2021, respectively. Upon the Arnolds' belated filing of their 2016 and 2017 tax returns, the Arnolds opted to have both years' refunds carried forward to be applied to the following tax year (i.e. $188,071.00 to be applied to the 2017 tax year and $244,071.00 applied to the 2018 tax year). One of the legal issues here is whether the three (3) year time period to claim a refund begins on the final date of the extended filing deadline, which the Arnolds automatically received by virtue of their valid federal filing extensions. ¶3 The administrative record contains evidence that the Arnolds received valid extensions from the IRS to file both their 2016 and 2017 tax returns. An Account Transcript from the IRS reflected an extended deadline of October 15, 2017 for the 2016 tax return. Although the record contains no equivalent document from the IRS concerning the Arnolds' 2017 tax return, the record includes a Form 504-I Application for Extension of Time to File an Oklahoma Income Tax Return. ¶4 Following the Arnolds' filing of their 2016 tax return on October 15, 2020 (wherein the Arnolds elected to have their refund of $188,071.00 carried over to the 2017 tax year), the Commission notified the Arnolds on November 20, 2020 that $94,011.00 of their 2016 refund was barred by statute because it had been filed outside the applicable three (3) year limitation period. On October 17, 2024, the Commission notified the Arnolds that $188,071.00 of their 2016 refund was now barred by statute, which the Arnolds timely protested via letter on November 8, 2024. After the Arnolds' filing of their 2017 tax return on October 15, 2021 (wherein the Arnolds elected to have their refund of $244,482.00 carried over to the 2018 tax year), the Commission informed the Arnolds on October 29, 2021 that their claimed refund of $244,482.00 from the 2017 tax year had been adjusted to $56,411.00 because they filed their 2017 Return outside the three (3) year limitation period. On November 15, 2021, the Commission notified the Arnolds that $56,411.00 of their 2017 refund was barred by statute. The Arnolds timely protested the Commission's denial of their 2017 refund via letter on January 13, 2022. ¶5 The Office of Administrative Law Judges received the Arnolds' protests on August 23, 2023, and, thereafter, assigned the case to Administrative Law Judge Megan Holden. The Arnolds' 2016 and 2017 protests were, subsequently, consolidated into a single case following a Joint Motion to Consolidate on January 6, 2023. Following pre-trial briefing, a hearing on the Arnolds' protests proceeded on July 17, 2025. Witness testimony included, in relevant part, a detailed breakdown of the Arnolds' tax payment timeline by Jolly Kurien, a Senior Case Management Specialist at the Commission. Throughout her testimony, Ms. Kurian reiterated that the three (3) year limitation period in 68 O.S. § 2373 Q. (BY MS. LANFAIR) All right. So -- so a copy of the extension wasn't mailed in, just a copy -- just a verification that it [had] happened? A. Verification -- Q. That it had been filed -- A. -- yes. Q. -- with the federal -- A. And -- and -- and, of course it solved [sic] the internal revenue acknowledged [sic] -- Q. O, yeah. No, I just -- again, I -- I -- I thought I was missing a page. A. Yes. Q. And so I just wanted to, like, clarify before I let everyone go. MS. LANFAIR: Okay. That's -- that is my only question. I'm sorry. Thank you. Mr. Moyers' Office Manager, James Mark Pulley, testified to his role in the preparation of returns and their standard office procedures regarding the submission of the federal extension request along with state returns. ¶6 The ALJ issued her Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations on August 1, 2025, wherein she determined the Arnolds' 2016 and 2017 returns were filed outside of the three (3) year statute of limitations imposed by 68 O.S. § 2373 [The Arnolds] filed their original 2016 Return on or about October 15, 2020, more than three years after years after the original due date of April 18, 2017. [The Arnolds] filed their original 2017 Return on October 15, 2021, also more than three years after the original due date of April 17, 2018. Additionally, [the Arnolds] had a tax liability for each year in question, and were required to file Form 504-I along with their Form 511 and proof of federal extension. [The Arnolds] provided this form with their 2017 Form 511, but not their 2016 Form 511. [The Arnolds] therefore did not have a valid Oklahoma extension for tax year 2016 . (emphasis added). The ALJ concluded by recommending that the Arnolds' protests be denied. The Commission's three (3) judge panel adopted the ALJ's Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations and entered its Order denying the Arnolds' protests on August 26, 2025. The Arnolds, thereafter, initiated this timely appeal. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶ 7 When the Commission acts in its adjudicative capacity, its orders will be affirmed on appeal if the record contains substantial evidence supporting the facts upon which the order is based and the order is free from legal error. Matter of Protest of Hare , 2017 OK 60 398 P.3d 317 citing Am. Airlines, Inc. v. State, ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 2014 OK 95 341 P.3d 56 Union Texas Petroleum, A Div. of Allied Chem. Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n of State of Okl. , 1981 OK 86 651 P.2d 652 ¶8 The Commission's legal rulings are reviewed de novo and subject to this court's plenary, independent and non-deferential re-examination. Grasso v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 2011 OK CIV APP 37 249 P.3d 1258 citing Blitz U.S.A., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission , 2003 OK 50 75 P.3d 883 de novo review. Blitz U.S.A., Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 2003 OK 50 75 P.3d 883 as corrected (May 22, 2003). ANALYSIS ¶ 9 The Arnolds asserted three (3) issues on appeal in their Pet.-in-Error, 68 O.S. § 2373 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. & Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32 512 P.3d 333 68 O.S. § 2373 Raytheon, whether the Arnolds complied with the requisite filing extension procedure imposed by 68 O.S. § 216 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. & Subsidiaries applies to individual taxpayers and corporate taxpayers alike. By virtue of our application of Raytheon to individual taxpayers, we find the Commission erred in utilizing the Arnolds' original due dates of April 18, 2017 and April 17, 2018 as the date the Arnolds "paid" their taxes because they received valid extensions for both tax years. In summary, the Arnolds' claim for their refund of $188,071.00 for the 2016 tax year, as well as their refund of $56,411.00 for the 2017 tax year were timely raised within three (3) years of the Arnolds' extended filing deadline. The Commission's August 26, 2025 Order is, accordingly, reversed. A. Application of Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. & Subsidiaries to Individual Taxpayers ¶ 10 The Arnolds contend the Commission erred as a matter of law when it declined to extend the Supreme Court's interpretation of 68 O.S. § 2373 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. & Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32 512 P.3d 333 Except as provided in subsection H of Section 2375 of this title, the amount of the refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid during the three (3) years immediately preceding the filing of the claim , or, if no claim was filed, then during the three (3) years immediately preceding the allowance of the refund. 68 O.S. § 2373 Neer v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1999 OK 41 982 P.2d 1071 Id. at ¶ 24. Prior to Raytheon , the date of a taxpayer's "payment" of income taxes (and, consequently, the start of § 2373's three (3) year limitation period) had been interpreted as the date taxes were initially due. See, e.g., Strelecki v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1993 OK 122 872 P.2d 910 as clarified on reh'g (Mar. 23, 1994); see also, e.g., Neer v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 1999 OK at ¶ 2, 982 P.2d at 1073 ; see also, e.g., Matlock v. State ex rel. Okl. Tax Comm'n , 2001 OK CIV APP 104 29 P.3d 614 Raytheon, however , revisited the meaning of the phrase "tax paid" where a taxpayer obtains a valid extension to file a particular year's tax return. Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. & Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32 512 P.3d 333 ¶11 In Raytheon, following the overpayment of its taxes for the 2012 tax year (timely filed on September 27, 2013 after receiving a valid filing extension), Raytheon -- a corporate taxpayer -- filed an Amended Tax Return for the 2012 tax year on September 27, 2016, wherein it sought a refund for its prior overpayment. Id. The Commission denied Raytheon's refund claim, concluding it was asserted more three (3) years after its original filing deadline of March 15, 2023, while Raytheon maintained its claim was raised within three (3) years of its extended filing deadline of September 27, 2013. Id. , at ¶¶ 1-3. In reviewing the plain language of 68 O.S. § 2373 Court found the phrase "portion of the tax paid during the three (3) years immediately preceding the filing of the claim" to be ambiguous, explaining the phrase could mean either (1) when the original return was actually filed (on the extended filing deadline of September 27, 2013); or (2) when the return was originally due (on March 15, 2013). Id. at ¶ 8. Upon engaging in the tenants of statutory construction, the Supreme Court concluded that, because Raytheon received a valid extension to file its taxes and did so within the extended timeframe, Raytheon's taxes were "deemed paid" when it filed its tax return on September 27, 2013. Id. at ¶ 18. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that Raytheon's claim for a refund for the 2012 tax year had been timely filed within the three (3) year period imposed by 68 O.S. § 2373 Id. ¶12 The Supreme Court's holding in Raytheon was, however, limited in application, as the Supreme Court included a footnote distinguishing Raytheon from an earlier case from a separate division of this Court -- Matlock v. State ex rel. Okl. Tax Comm'n , 2001 OK CIV APP 104 29 P.3d 614 Matlock Court similarly considered 68 O.S. § 2373 Raytheon differentiated its analysis from that of the Matlock Court by limiting its application of § 710:50-9-2 to the specific facts presented, explaining the following: Matlock is inapposite [to Raytheon ] because (1) the taxpayers in [ Matlock ] failed to timely file a return when originally due and did not request an extension; and (2) taxpayers were individuals and not corporations. Thus § 710:50-9-2 specifically applied to the facts presented. Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. & Subsidiaries , 2022 OK at ¶ 15 n. 13, 512 P.3d at 340 . The Arnolds, the Commission, and the ALJ each acknowledge, however, that the Supreme Court misapplied the facts of Matlock in its Raytheon footnote, as the Matlock taxpayers did receive a valid extension to file their return for the tax year at issue. See Matlock v. State ex rel. Okl. Tax Comm'n , 2001 OK CIV APP at ¶ 1, 29 P.3d at 615 ("[t]he Matlocks filed and received an extension of time to file their 1993 federal income tax return which then became due on October 15, 1994. This extension extended the 1993 state income tax return date to October 15, 1994."). In light of this misapplication of fact, we read Raytheon to have effectively overruled Matlock . ¶13 We recognize the Supreme Court also distinguished Raytheon from Matlock because Raytheon dealt with a corporate taxpayer while Matlock dealt with individual taxpayers. Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. & Subsidiaries , at ¶ 15 n. 13. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court did not cite any case law or engage in any statutory analysis to show that the statutory period in § 2373 should be interpreted differently based upon the status of the taxpayer. See 68 O.S. § 1352 see also First Nat. Bank of Stillwater v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 1970 OK 33 466 P.2d 644 Raytheon should not be extended to individual taxpayers who receive a valid filing extension from the Commission. B. Interplay Between the Date Taxes are Deemed "Paid" in & Filing Extension Procedure in ¶ 14 The Arnolds further contend that our application of Raytheon to individual taxpayers renders their claims for refunds for both the 2016 and 2017 tax years timely. As noted in our analysis supra ., 68 O.S § 2373 functions as a three (3) year statute of repose which begins to run on the date a taxpayer's taxes are "paid". Neer v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1999 OK at ¶ 20, 982 P.2d at 1079 . Like the parties in Raytheon, the Arnolds and the Commission present differing interpretations of the phrase "tax paid" as it is used in 68 O.S. § 2373 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. & Subsidiaries , 2022 OK 32 512 P.3d 333 Raytheon to individuals, we must, necessarily, interpret § 2373's three (3) year period to begin running on the extended filing deadline where the taxpayer receives a valid filing extension for a particular tax year. Nevertheless, for the Arnolds to have received the benefit of the extended filing deadline (and, consequently, a belated start to § 2373's three (3) year limitation period), the Arnolds must have obtained valid filing extension for the 2016 and 2017 tax years. ¶15 It is undisputed that the Arnolds obtained valid federal extensions to file their 2016 and 2017 Returns. The Commission's Order, however, found that the Arnolds failed to comply with the requisite procedure to obtain valid Oklahoma filing extensions. Title 68 O.S. § 216 pursuant to written request". (a) A valid extension of time in which to file a Federal Income Tax Return automatically extends the due date of the Oklahoma Income Tax Return, unless Oklahoma liability is owed. A copy of the Federal extension must be attached to the Oklahoma Return. If the due date for filing the Federal Return is not extended or if an Oklahoma liability is owed, an extension of time to file the Oklahoma Return may be granted only by OTC Form 504. Ninety percent (90%) of the tax liability must be paid by the original due date for the return to avoid penalty charges for late payment. OAC § 710:50-3-4(a) (amended 2017). ¶16 We find the use of the phrase "Oklahoma liability owed" in § 710:50-3-4(a) to be ambiguous, especially when applied to the facts of this case. See YDF, Inc. v. Schlumar, Inc., 2006 OK 32 136 P.3d 656 See, e.g., Cox v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Dep't of Human Servs ., 2004 OK 17 87 P.3d 607 ¶17 Because we find Commission's use of the phrase "Oklahoma liability owed" in OAC § 710:50-3-4(a) to be ambiguous where taxpayers preemptively made estimated payments in excess of their ultimate liability for a particular tax year, we must employ the rules of statutory interpretation to ascertain legislative intent. Rickard v. Coulimore , 2022 OK 9 505 P.3d 920 Dolese Bros. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 2003 OK 4 64 P.3d 1093 YDF, Inc. v. Schlumar, Inc., 2006 OK 32 136 P.3d 656 ¶18 As stated supra ., 68 O.S. § 216 68 O.S. §§ 201 See McIntosh v. Watkins , 2019 OK 6 441 P.3d 1094 Ninety percent (90%) of the tax liability must be paid by the original due date for the return to avoid penalty charges for late payment. By adding this additional provision related to a taxpayer's extended payment timeline, the Commission's rule implies that taxpayers who "owe an Oklahoma liability" have not yet tendered full payment of their taxes for a particular year. Finally, § 710:50-3-4 embraces different terminology when referring to a taxpayer's total "tax liability" for a particular year, the "liability paid", and the "liability owed". In light of our view that the language used in OAC § 710:50-3-4(a) is ambiguous and that the Arnolds had made timely and excessive quarterly estimated tax payments during 2016 and 2017, we conclude the Arnolds did not "owe" an Oklahoma liability for the 2016 and 2017 tax years. Because it is undisputed the Arnolds received valid federal filing extensions for the 2016 and 2017 tax years, the Arnolds filing deadlines with the Commission were "automatically extend[ed]" pursuant to § 710:50-3-4(a) so long as the Arnolds attached a copy of their Federal Extension to 2016 and 2017 State Returns. ¶19 In the underlying administrative record, it is undisputed that the Arnolds filed an OTC Form 504-I for the 2017 tax year, thus satisfying the Commission's extension procedure of § 710:50-3-4(a) regardless of our interpretation of the phrase "Oklahoma liability owed." Thus, the Commission erred in finding that the Arnolds did not receive valid extensions for the 2017 tax year. Regarding the 2016 tax year, J. Moyers, CPA, testified to the Arnolds' tax payment timeline, maintaining that he prepared both the Arnolds' 2016 and 2017 Returns and requested extensions for both tax years from the IRS. Although it was established in the administrative proceeding below that a copy of the Arnolds' federal filing extension was not attached to the version of the Arnolds' 2016 Return that was admitted into evidence, the Arnolds' CPA, Mr. Moyers testified during his direct testimony that "[a]ll necessary federal attachments would -- goes with the State of Oklahoma return . . ." . Although he stated that he did not have a specific recollection of the return, he stated that "the federal attachment automatically goes with the state income tax return." OTC's counsel ineffectively attempted during the cross-examination phase of Mr. Moyers' testimony to establish or clarify that "a copy of the extension wasn't mailed in, . . . just a verification that it [had] happened?" The on-the-record exchange between OTC's counsel and Mr. Moyers on that point (as quoted in Background section, supra. ) was, at best, unclear. Their on-the-record exchange is not viewed by this Court as having established or clarified any fact in controversy. While we acknowledge the fundamental role of the fact finder in administrative proceedings, the cross-examination of Mr. Moyers, when viewed in context of his overall testimony, only represented conjecture and inference on the point OTC's counsel attempted to establish: i.e,, to call into question Mr. Moyers' testimony that "the federal attachment automatically goes with the state income tax return.". It is well-established that findings of fact by an administrative agency which are based merely on conjecture and inference may not be sustained. Stipe v. State ex rel. Bd. of Trs. of Oklahoma Pub. Emps. Ret. Sys., 2008 OK 52 188 P.3d 120 See In re Protest of Freymiller, Inc . , 2005 OK CIV APP 94 127 P.3d 615 ¶20 Because the evidence in the record shows that the Arnolds received valid extensions to file both their 2016 and 2017 Returns, we find the Commission erred in denying the Arnolds' claims for refunds. In applying Raytheon to individual taxpayers, we conclude that, where a taxpayer receives a valid filing extension, 68 O.S. § 2373 CONCLUSION ¶ 21 Based upon the foregoing analysis, the Commission's Order is, therefore, reversed. DOWNING, P.J., and MITCHELL, J., concur. FOOTNOTES 1. Whether the Arnolds' 2016 and 2017 Form 511 taxes were deemed due and paid on the dates that their 511 returns were filed and their tax liabilities were thereby ascertained under 68 O.S. § 2373 Matter of Protest of Raytheon Company and Subsidiaries , 512 P.3d 333 2. Whether the Arnolds' claims for refund filed via their 2016 and 2017 Form 511 Oklahoma Resident Income Tax Returns were made within three (3) years from the date the taxes were paid; thus, not time barred by 68 O.S. § 2373 3. Whether OAC § 710:50-9-2 is inapplicable to the Arnolds due to the conditional clause set forth in the first eight words of the provision, "When an original return has not been filed," since the Arnolds filed original 511 returns for both 2016 and 2017. Wootten v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n , 1935 OK 54 40 P.2d 672 68 O.S. § 2373 infra. Raytheon as "harmoniz[ing] [68 O.S.] §§ 216, 2373 and 2375" so to "carry out legislative objectives in the comprehensive statutory scheme", explaining its rationale as follows: First, a taxpayer is statutorily authorized to request an extension to file the required income tax return. If we utilize the original due date for a tax return, without regard to an extension, we would impede a taxpayer's statutory right to extend the deadline. Second, by utilizing the filing date in this case Raytheon is better able to submit the most complete picture of the company's income and tax obligation. It makes little sense to consider the taxes paid prior to presentation of an income tax return. Our decision is also consistent with 68 O.S.2011, § 2375 when a return is filed . Third, under OTC regulations a taxpayer is not required to have tendered one-hundred percent of their tax obligation at the time an extension is sought. See OAC, § 710:50-3-4 (2011) (requiring payment of ninety percent (90%) of the total tax liability by the original due date to obtain an extension and to avoid penalties). This regulation is an acknowledgment that estimated payments are merely an approximation of a taxpayer's total liability. The statutes and regulations merely impose a due diligence requirement on a taxpayer to avoid underestimating their tax obligation. Finally, our conclusion is consistent with the federal refund scheme, which includes the period of any extension to file an income tax return. Matter of Protest of Raytheon Co. & Subsidiaries , 2022 OK at ¶ 18, 512 P.3d at 341 --42 (emphasis in original). see FN 2, supra. ) reiterates the applicable statute of limitations for a tax refund claim imposed by 68 O.S. § 2373 When an original return has not been filed , the Commission will not issue a refund on an original income tax return filed 3 years after the original due date of the return. A refund that is "barred by statute" cannot be used as payment on any delinquent account or applied to estimated tax. Exceptions to the statute of limitations set out in 710:50-5-13 also apply to certain refund situations. OAC § 710:50-9-2 (emphasis added). In addition to their arguments concerning 68 O.S. § 2373 We, however, find the limitation period imposed by 68 O.S. § 2373 68 O.S. § 216 The Tax Commission, whenever in its judgment good cause exists and pursuant to written request, may grant a reasonable extension for the filing of any return required under any state tax law. The Tax Commission shall keep a record of every extension granted with the reason therefor. . . . An extension shall not extend the date for payment of the state income or franchise tax due. In case an extension is granted, the taxpayer may file a tentative return on or before the date when the return is required by any state tax law showing the estimated amount of tax for the period covered by the return and may pay the estimated tax or the first installment thereof at the time of filing such tentative return and no interest or penalty shall attach or be payable on sums so paid in due course. McClure v. ConocoPhillips Co ., 2006 OK 42 142 P.3d 390 C.f., Moore v. Warr Acres Nursing Ctr., LLC , 2016 OK 28 376 P.3d 894 similar to " statutes, and because those rules are authorized and approved by the Oklahoma Legislature, then these are somehow equivalent to statutory law. That reasoning is faulty."). We further note, however, unlike statutes, which are direct manifestations of Legislative intent, administrative rules are formed subject to the Legislature's delegation of rulemaking authority to agencies, boards, and commissions so to "facilitate the administration of legislative policy." Stemmons, Inc. v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp ., 1956 OK 221 301 P.2d 212 Estes v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2008 OK 21 184 P.3d 518 75 O.S. § 250.2 Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 12 of Oklahoma Cnty. v. State ex rel. State Bd. of Educ ., 2024 OK 39 565 P.3d 23 The Legislature has bestowed the Commission with authority "to promulgate and enforce any reasonable rules" concerning the state's tax procedures and remedies. 68 O.S. §§ 201 68 O.S., § 216 See Woods Dev. Co. v. Meurer Abstract & Title Co. , 1985 OK 106 712 P.2d 30 infra. , that the OTC's factual finding with respect to 2016 federal filing extension, specifically inferring that a copy of the federal extension was not attached to the 2016 state return was not supported by substantial evidence. See FN 2, supra . Although OAC § 710:50-3-4 was amended on September 11, 2017, the applicable portion of the Commission's filing extension procedure contains identical language to its pre-Amendment counterpart. See Sw. Pub. Serv. Co. v. State , 1981 OK 136 637 P.2d 92 Lone Star Gas Co., a Div. of Enserch Corp. v. Corp. Comm'n of State of Okl., 1982 OK 79 648 P.2d 36