Thе sole question presented is whether a highway use tax payer, who fails to maintain complete and accurate records of the totаl Ohio mileage travelled by each of his vehicles whose use is made subject to the tax, is entitled to have proof of some specific mileage on some vehicles during some part of the audit period projected, so as to support a claim of actual mileage on all vehicles during the entire audit period. Our answer is in the negative and, therefore, we affirm.
In the absence of adequate records required by law, the Tax Commissioner based the assessment in this case on a presumptiоn of “forced continuity,” which assumes that return trips by taxpayer’s vehicles оver Ohio highways are made by the taxpayer. The return trips constitute the “forced continuity” miles in this case. See Transport Motor Express v. Porterfield (1968),
The Board of Tax Appeals found, however, that a reduction of the amount of the assessment was prоper for the one quarter for which specific evidence was offered, and, for that quarter only, granted a reduction based on proof of actual use by others.
Appellant urges that proof of the aсtual mileage for one quarter of the audit period, from the recоrds of two drivers, should have been projected for all 40 of its drivers and for all of its vehicles over all 12 quarters of the audit period.
R. G. 5728.07 requires eaсh person liable for payment of the highway use tax to “keep a complete and accurate record, upon forms prescribеd by the Tax Commissioner showing the total miles travelled on a public highway in this statе by each” vehicle which is subject to the tax. The statute further requires that thоse ‘ ‘ records shall be available at any time . . . for the inspection of the Tax Commissioner . . . and shall be preserved for a period of four yеars.”
R. C. 5728.10 authorizes the Tax Commissioner to “make an assessment against ... [a highwаy use tax
In contesting the assessment, it was incumbent upоn the taxpayer “to show in what manner and to what extent the Tax Commissioner was wrong.” Midwest Transfer Co. v. Porterfield (1968),
Appellant argues that the “forced continuity” presumption projected for the whole 12 quarters is insufficiеnt under the rule of Bloch v. Glander (1949),
In this case, appellant did not produce the records relevant to its assessment which it was required to keep. To accept appellant’s argumеnt would be to allow it an inference that the records which it failed to kеep for any part of the audit period would support its claim for thе entire audit period. Such inference is not justified from the limited evidence shown in the record.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.
Decision affirmed.