NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557- 1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us
25-P-928 Appeals Court
SKECHERS USA, INC. vs. COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE.
No. 25-P-928.
Suffolk. April 8, 2026. - July 30, 2026.
Present: Massing, Ditkoff, & Hand, JJ.
Taxation, Corporate excise, Manufacturing corporation.
Appeal from a decision of the Appellate Tax Board.
Michael J. Bowen for the taxpayer. Celine E. de la Foscade-Condon (Brett M. Goldberg also present) for Commissioner of Revenue.
MASSING, J. In this appeal, we consider whether the
taxpayer, Skechers USA, Inc. (Skechers), qualifies as a
"manufacturing corporation" for purposes of the corporate excise
tax. See G. L. c. 63, § 38 (l) (1), as amended through
St. 2013, c. 46, §§ 36, 37. Skechers contends that its business
is to design and market footwear, but that it plays only an
"incidental" role in the actual production of its shoes. The
Appellate Tax Board (board) determined that Skechers was engaged 2
in manufacturing in substantial part and, on that basis,
affirmed the Commissioner of Revenue's (commissioner) denial of
Skechers's application for abatement of corporate excise taxes.
In its appeal from the board's decision, Skechers argues that
the board erred and that, as a design and marketing company, not
a manufacturer, it was entitled to use a more favorable formula
for determining its tax liability. We affirm.
1. Background. Skechers is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Manhattan Beach, California.
It is an international footwear retailer and wholesaler that
sells a variety of adult and children's "lifestyle" footwear, as
well as functional work shoes, running shoes, and golf shoes,
with retail locations throughout the United States, including
Massachusetts. During the tax years at issue, 2015 through
2017, Skechers maintained two offices in China and one in
Vietnam that functioned as liaisons between its California-based
design team and approximately ten independent factories located
in China and Vietnam.
For each tax year at issue, Skechers filed its
Massachusetts corporate excise tax returns using the three-
factor apportionment formula, based on property, payroll, and
sales, applicable to most general business corporations. As the
board explained in its thoughtful and comprehensive findings of
fact and report, manufacturing corporations with income from 3
business activity that was taxable both within and outside
Massachusetts were required to apportion their income using a
single-factor formula based solely on sales. For manufacturers
with little property or payroll in Massachusetts, like Skechers,
the use of the single-factor formula tended to increase the
proportion of their income apportioned to the Commonwealth,
increasing their tax liability. Thus, it was advantageous for
Skechers not to be considered a manufacturer.
In October 2020, following an audit, the commissioner
issued an adjustment taxing Skechers as a manufacturing
corporation using the single-factor apportionment formula. The
commissioner issued a notice of intent to assess in November
2020, followed by a notice of assessment in December 2020. The
assessment reflected a tax liability of $155,043, an
underpayment penalty of $31,009, and interest of $36,476.98 for
the three years at issue. Skechers filed for an abatement in
April 2021.
After a hearing, the commissioner denied abatement of the
assessed tax and interest but abated the penalty. Skechers paid
the assessment and appealed to the board. After an evidentiary
hearing in October 2023, the board issued a decision in May 2024
in favor of the commissioner. In May 2025, the board issued its
findings of fact and report concluding that Skechers was engaged
in manufacturing in substantial part. This appeal followed. 4
2. Definition of "manufacturing corporation." Before we
set forth the board's factual findings regarding Skechers's
participation in the process of producing Skechers brand
footwear, we summarize the commissioner's and the board's
considerations for determining whether an entity is a
"manufacturing corporation" for tax purposes.
During the tax years at issue, the corporate excise tax
statute, G. L. c. 63, § 38, defined a "manufacturing
corporation" as one "engaged, in substantial part, in
transforming raw or finished physical materials by hand or
machinery, and through human skill and knowledge, into a new
product possessing a new name, nature and adapted to a new use."
G. L. c. 63, § 38 (l) (1), as amended through St. 2013, c. 46,
§§ 36, 37.1 This definition contains two related requirements:
1 Throughout our decision, we cite to the version of the statute and regulations in effect during the relevant tax years. Although the statute was amended in 2017 and again in 2018, those amendments affected other parts of the statute not relevant here. See St. 2017, c. 55, §§ 8, 9. See also St. 2018, c. 273, § 17, 18. Effective January 1, 2025, the Legislature eliminated the distinction between manufacturing and nonmanufacturing corporations for purposes of the excise tax under G. L. c. 63, § 38. All business corporations are now taxed using the single-factor formula. See St. 2023, c. 50, § 31 (striking G. L. c. 63, § 38, in its entirety and inserting new language in place thereof). The same definition of a "manufacturing corporation," however, was inserted in G. L. c. 63, § 42B (e). See St. 2023, c. 50, § 35. Status as a manufacturing corporation, as defined under § 42B (e), remains relevant for purposes of the use tax exemption, G. L. c. 64H, § 6 (r), (s); G. L. c. 64I, § 7 (b), as well as the investment tax credit, G. L. c. 63, § 31A, and the local property tax 5
that the corporation "be engaged in manufacturing," and that it
do so "in substantial part" (citation omitted). Genentech, Inc.
v. Commissioner of Revenue, 476 Mass. 258, 264 (2017). See 830
Code Mass. Regs. § 58.2.1(6) (1999) (setting forth and
illustrating factors for classification as manufacturing
corporation).
"Manufacturing normally involves a change of some
substance, element, or material into something new or
different." Charles River Breeding Lab., Inc. v. State Tax
Comm'n, 374 Mass. 333, 335 (1978). The inquiry focuses on
whether the corporation's activities contribute to the
transformation of materials into a product "of substantially
different character" (citation omitted). Genentech, Inc., 476
Mass. at 262. "A process which does not produce a finished
product, but constitutes an essential and integral part of a
total manufacturing process, may constitute manufacturing." 830
Code Mass. Regs. § 58.2.1(6)(b)(7).
exemption, G. L. c. 59, § 5, Sixteenth (3). See Genentech, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 476 Mass. 258, 262 n.6 (2017); Onex Communications Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 457 Mass. 419, 422-424 (2010); Commissioner of Revenue v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 423 Mass. 42, 44 & nn.3-4 (1996). "[O]ur cases have considered the term 'manufacturing corporation' to have the same meaning in the property tax exemption statute as it does in the corporate excise tax statute." Genentech, Inc., supra. 6
In addition, "our cases have required that the degree of
manufacturing must be 'substantial' . . . when measured against
the entire operations of the corporation." Fernandes Super
Mkts., Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 371 Mass. 318, 322 (1976). A
corporation may engage in both manufacturing and
nonmanufacturing activities; however, where the manufacturing
component constitutes "an important and material branch of the
business" in relation to the corporation's overall operations,
it is properly classified as a manufacturing corporation.
Assessors of Boston v. Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation, 323
Mass. 730, 746 (1949). The substantiality inquiry considers the
role of manufacturing within the corporation's business as a
whole, including its contribution to revenue, the allocation of
the corporation's assets to manufacturing, and its relationship
to the corporation's overall activities. See Commissioner of
Corps. & Taxation v. Assessors of Boston, 321 Mass. 90, 97
(1947).
statute provided that a corporation's manufacturing activities
would be considered substantial if they met any one of five
alternative tests, four of which measured the percentage of
sales, payroll, or tangible property attributed to or used in
the manufacturing process. See G. L. c. 63, § 38 (l) (1). For
example, manufacturing activities are deemed substantial if at 7
least twenty-five percent of the corporation's gross receipts
are derived from the sale of manufactured goods. See id. The
fifth test was whether "the corporation's manufacturing
activities are deemed substantial under relevant regulations
promulgated by the commissioner." Id. See Genentech, Inc., 476
Mass. at 264.
3. Skechers's manufacturing process. We summarize how
Skechers shoes are made as set forth in the board's findings of
fact, supplemented by uncontested facts from the record. See
G. L. c. 58A, § 13 ("The decision of the board shall be final as
to findings of fact"). The board delineated the following steps
in the process, from start to finish:
Product development brief. Skechers begins the shoemaking
process by creating a "product development brief." For each of
the two primary seasons -- the fall and winter season and the
spring and summer season -- or in response to market trends,
Skechers designers and merchandisers outline the concept,
inspiration, or direction of a product and present it at a
meeting attended by designers, merchandisers, and product
technicians. The brief is for internal use and is not shared
with Skechers's third-party manufacturers.
Design specifications. Skechers designers then prepare
design specifications. These specifications set forth detailed
information concerning nearly all aspects of the proposed shoe, 8
including materials, stitching, color, dimensions, and
technological elements. The specifications may identify a
particular "last" or "mold" to be used -- the last determines
the overall shape and fit of the shoe, and the mold is used for
the bottom of the shoe -- or may direct the third-party
manufacturer to create a new last or mold in accordance with
Skechers's measurements and guidelines. The specifications may
also identify the construction method and the stitch pattern.
Manufacturer selection, materials, and testing. The
specifications are transmitted to Skechers's Asia offices, where
employees choose factories and work with them to refine the
specifications based on factory feedback. Skechers maintains
ongoing relationships with many overseas factories. Although
the factories are typically responsible for procuring raw
materials and negotiating prices with suppliers, their choices
must comply with Skechers's specifications and testing
requirements, and Skechers may require the use of particular
suppliers.
Factories prepare "spec sheets" specifying materials to be
used in each part of the shoe, which Skechers personnel review
and may modify if they are not satisfied with the selected
materials. A factory's failure to comply may result in monetary
penalties or refusal of the product. Skechers either conducts
testing or reviews the factories' testing of materials to ensure 9
that the selected materials meet industry, and its own,
standards.
Prototypes and line review. The third-party factories next
produce a "pullover," a physical prototype derived from
Skechers's designs, for Skechers to assess pattern and fit.
Skechers designers and product technicians, both overseas and in
the United States, conduct the "initial line review" of the
pullover and may mark revisions directly on it. Skechers's
United States designers and technicians may travel to Asia to
convey revisions in person. Skechers may discontinue a product
at this stage.
If the product proceeds, lasts and molds are produced at
Skechers's request and in accordance with its specifications.
The third-party factories generally contract with other
factories to produce the lasts and molds, but the specifications
are dictated by Skechers, which employs technicians to work with
these manufacturers. Factories may not destroy or recycle lasts
or molds without Skechers's approval.
At the "middle line review," sample shoes are produced in
two color patterns, which Skechers's United States employees
review and, if necessary, make further revisions. At the "final
line review," the product is produced in all colors, and
Skechers employees conduct quality assurance. 10
Fit testing and confirmation. Product review and fit
testing take place throughout development. If problems are
identified, Skechers product technicians are notified and direct
the factories to make necessary changes. Factories provide
revised samples until the product meets Skechers's requirements.
Once fit and construction are approved, factories produce a
confirmation sample. The development process typically takes
six to nine months.
Preproduction and initial production. Before mass
production, Skechers commercialization and development teams
meet with the factories to address final design alterations and
any other outstanding issues. At this stage, factories make
"dies" -- specialized tools for cutting and shaping materials --
for every size of shoe and produce a few sample pairs in each
size. Skechers employees are present to review the samples.
Following approval, Skechers and the factory finalize standard
operating procedures and proceed to preproduction.
The third-party factories then conduct initial production
runs. Skechers personnel confirm that each size is produced in
accordance with the specifications and standard operating
procedures and conduct quality checks. If these are
satisfactory to Skechers, the factories may go forward with
production. Skechers quality assurance personnel also perform
visual inspections of equipment and verify that machinery 11
operates within required specifications. If deficiencies are
identified, Skechers directs corrective action, and production
does not proceed until the issues are resolved. Skechers's
overseas personnel remain present at the factories, and samples
are sent to Skechers employees in the United States for
inspection.
Final inspection and distribution. After production,
Skechers conducts a final inspection. Reports identify passing
and defective products, and factories must remove defective
units if failure rates exceed specified thresholds. Products
are then packaged according to Skechers's instructions in boxes
designed by Skechers employees and shipped to distribution
centers.
4. Review of board's decision. a. Standard of review.
"We will not reverse a decision of the [Appellate Tax Board] if
it is based on substantial evidence and on a correct application
of the law." Welch v. Commissioner of Revenue, 105 Mass. App.
Ct. 391, 395 (2025), quoting U.S. Auto Parts Network, Inc. v.
Commissioner of Revenue, 491 Mass. 122, 128 (2022). "We review
conclusions of law, including questions of statutory
construction, de novo." New England Forestry Found., Inc. v.
Assessors of Hawley, 468 Mass. 138, 149 (2014). Although the
board's findings of fact are final, "the court may consider
whether the evidence in the case is sufficient to support the 12
board's conclusion of law." Kennametal, Inc. v. Commissioner of
Revenue, 426 Mass. 39, 43 (1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1059
(1998). "[B]ecause the board is an agency charged with
administering the tax law and has expertise in tax matters, we
give weight to its interpretation of tax statutes, and will
affirm its statutory interpretation if that interpretation is
reasonable" (quotation and citations omitted). AA Transp. Co.
v. Commissioner of Revenue, 454 Mass. 114, 119 (2009).
b. Skechers's engagement in manufacturing. The first
inquiry in assessing whether a taxpayer is to be treated as a
"manufacturing corporation" is whether the corporation is
engaged in manufacturing, that is, "in transforming raw or
finished physical materials by hand or machinery, and through
human skill and knowledge, into a new product possessing a new
name, nature and adapted to a new use." G. L. c. 63,
§ 38 (l) (1). Skechers contends that its activities do not
amount to manufacturing.
"The words 'engaged in manufacturing' are not to be given a
narrow or restrictive meaning." Genentech, Inc., 476 Mass. at
263, quoting Assessors of Boston, 323 Mass. at 748-749.
Consistent with this approach, a wide range of activities that
affect or contribute to the transformation of source materials
into a different product have been held to constitute
manufacturing. See, e.g., Genentech, Inc., supra at 259, 263 13
(corporation's drug production activities, in which scientists
implant deoxyribonucleic acid molecules into living cells to
modify cells' genetic code for purpose of producing and
extracting "proteins of interest"); William F. Sullivan & Co. v.
Commissioner of Revenue, 413 Mass. 576, 577-578 (1992)
(separation and dismantling of scrap metal into different sizes
and metallurgical content to meet industry specifications for
use by steel mills and foundries); Assessors of Boston, supra at
741-742 (transformation of "raw green coffee beans" into
"roasted and ground coffee ready for immediate use as beverage,"
notwithstanding that both raw material and finished product
share same name); Noreast Fresh, Inc. v. Commissioner of
Revenue, 50 Mass. App. Ct. 352, 353-354 (2000) (processing of
raw vegetables, grown by others, into variety of prepackaged
products for sale to supermarket chains). Indeed, "a company
may be engaged in manufacturing where the company produces no
final product itself, but generates blueprints or plans that are
sent to third parties for ultimate production." Onex
Communications Corp. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 457 Mass. 419,
427 (2010). See id. at 421 (development of "computer-edited
design that included technical specifications of the hardware
and software components" and prototypes of two computer chips to
be produced by third party for use in telecommunications). The
source materials can be intangible as well as tangible. See 14
Commissioner of Revenue v. Houghton Mifflin Co., 423 Mass. 42,
48 (1996) (transformation of "ideas, art, information, and
photographs, by application of human knowledge, intelligence,
and skill, into computer disks" to be used by third-party
suppliers to print books or to package as compact discs).
To qualify as manufacturing, the taxpayer's activities must
play an "essential and integral" part in the total manufacturing
process, even if those activities do not produce a finished
product for the consumer. Joseph T. Rossi Corp. v. State Tax
Comm'n, 369 Mass. 178, 181 (1975). This test has been phrased
as whether the taxpayer's contribution "is a sine qua non of the
produced items' ultimate salability." Associated Testing Lab.,
Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 429 Mass. 628, 631 (1999). The
"sine qua non" formulation may be overinclusive, however,
because any creative process, such as writing a book or
designing furniture, could be called the sine qua non of the
production of the finished product. See Houghton Mifflin Co.,
423 Mass. at 49. See also William F. Sullivan & Co., 413 Mass.
at 581 ("not . . . every process comprising the first step, or a
step, in the transformation of some source material into a
finished product qualifies as a process which is an essential
and integral part of the total manufacturing process as that
phrase has been used in our cases"). 15
Applying these principles, the record amply supports the
board's conclusion that Skechers is engaged in manufacturing.
Skechers's activities extend far beyond the creation of concepts
or designs. Skechers designers prepare specifications that set
forth the parameters of nearly all aspects of the proposed
product, including materials, dimensions, stitching, colors, and
technological features. Its involvement continues beyond
prototyping into the preproduction process, in which Skechers
designers and product technicians review and revise prototype
pullovers, marking changes directly on the pullover and
requiring further refinements. Skechers reviews and revises
molds and requires that lasts conform to its specifications.
Skechers's requirements govern the third-party manufacturers'
selection of materials used in production. Although factories
may independently purchase raw materials, they must comply with
those requirements, and Skechers may require the use of specific
suppliers. Skechers conducts or reviews testing to ensure that
materials meet required performance standards.
Skechers's role continues through production. Before full
production begins, factories conduct test runs and prepare
standard operating procedures, which are submitted to Skechers
for review and approval. During production, Skechers employees
present at factories confirm that products are manufactured in
accordance with specifications and perform inspections, 16
including verification that machinery operates within required
parameters. Skechers conducts final inspections and designs the
packaging for final sales.
As the board aptly found, the evidence "showed a near-
continuous back and forth between Skechers'[s] US employees, its
overseas employees, and the factories -- including e-mail
communications and in-person visits -- throughout the entire
shoe-creation process," and that Skechers employees played a
"vital role . . . throughout the entirety of the shoe creation
process."2 Skechers's involvement in the manufacture of Skechers
brand footwear by third-party factories is comparable to that of
Houghton Mifflin in the development of content to be produced by
third parties as printed books or compact discs, see Houghton
Mifflin Co., 423 Mass. at 48, 50-51; more extensive than Onex
Communications' design and development of prototype computer
chips, see Onex Communications Corp., 457 Mass. at 421, 430-432;
and more transformative than the scrap metal repurposing
2 Skechers claims in its brief that the board erred in finding that it "controlled every detail of how the footwear was manufactured." Although the board's factual findings are final, its decision "may be challenged on the ground that it is not supported by 'substantial evidence.'" Schussel v. Commissioner of Revenue, 472 Mass. 83, 86 (2015). The board did not, however, make the finding that Skechers attributes to it. The record amply supports the finding that the board did make concerning the essential roles that Skechers employees played throughout the manufacturing process. 17
conducted in William F. Sullivan & Co., 413 Mass. at 577-578, or
the produce packaging in Noreast Fresh, Inc., 50 Mass. App. Ct.
at 353-354.
Skechers's arguments to the contrary are unavailing. For
example, Skechers contends that all its activities that
culminate in the production of a prototype should be "excluded
from consideration." In support of this assertion, Skechers
points to one-half of one of the guiding principles in the
commissioner's regulations for determining whether a process
constitutes manufacturing: "Market research, research and
development, and design and creation of a prototype, although
prerequisites to manufacturing, are not manufacturing." 830
Code Mass. Regs. § 58.2.1(6)(b)(5). Although the commissioner
and the board might not have considered Skechers a manufacturer
if it did nothing more than produce prototypes for third
parties, that characterization is contrary to the uncontested
evidence that Skechers had significant additional involvement in
the manufacturing process. See Onex Communications Corp., 457
Mass. at 429. Moreover, Skechers overlooks the other half of
the same subsection -- the sentence that precedes the sentence
on which Skechers relies -- which better describes Skechers's
activities: "Manufacturing ordinarily involves the production
of products in standardized sizes and qualities and in multiple
quantities." 830 Code Mass. Regs. § 58.2.1(6)(b)(5). 18
Similarly, Skechers would have us ignore its activities
after the creation of prototypes. Thus, it argues that the
board erred in considering its fitting process, in which
Skechers product technicians interact with the third-party
factories to ensure Skechers's requirements are met, "because
the fitting process is not a sine qua non of the salability of
the manufactured shoes." Again, there is no basis in the law or
the facts to view a taxpayer's activities piecemeal. Although
any one particular function that Skechers performs may not be
necessary and integral to the production of its shoes, without
Skechers employees' involvement in the manufacturing process
from beginning to end, the output would be inconsistent with the
Skechers brand and its standards.
Skechers devotes a substantial portion of its brief, as it
did in proceedings before the commissioner and the board,
attempting to distinguish a board decision finding a different
shoe company, Deckers, to be engaged in manufacturing. See
Deckers Outdoors Corp. vs. Commissioner of Revenue, Appellate
Tax Bd., Nos. C320020, C321955, ATB 2018-227 (June 21, 2018)
(Deckers). Skechers argues essentially that it exercised less
extensive control over its overseas third-party factories than
Deckers did. We need not engage in a comparison between
Skechers and Deckers, however, because nothing in the board's
Deckers decision suggests that Deckers's participation in the 19
manufacturing process provided the benchmark for the minimum
involvement against which other taxpayers are to be judged.
Indeed, the statute instructs, "In determining whether a process
constitutes manufacturing, the commissioner will examine the
facts and circumstances of each case." G. L. c. 63,
§ 38 (l) (1). As to Skechers's argument that it was not engaged
in manufacturing because its overseas employees conducted only
"quality assurance," whereas Deckers's overseas employees
conducted "quality control," we agree with the board that the
labels are inconsequential because "the record showed that
quality inspection -- regardless of its label -- was conducted
by Skechers'[s] employees throughout the shoe-creation process,
on-site in the factories," with Skechers quality assurance
personnel present on a daily basis.3
Viewing its operations "as a whole," Noreast Fresh, Inc.,
50 Mass. App. Ct. at 357, it is plain that Skechers was engaged
in manufacturing as it is expansively defined by Massachusetts
3 We further note that in each of its annual 10-K reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the relevant tax years, Skechers touted its "quality control program" (emphasis added), which was "designed to ensure that not only finished goods meet our established design specifications, but also that all goods bearing our trademarks meet our standards for quality." These reports also referred to the "array of inspection procedures at various stages of the production process" performed by Skechers "quality control personnel located in China and Vietnam." 20
law. The board's decision was supported by substantial evidence
and correctly applied the law.
c. Manufacturing "in substantial part." Conceding that
its manufacturing activities would be considered "substantial"
under at least one of the four quantitative, percentage-based
tests set forth in G. L. c. 63, § 38 (l) (1), Skechers argues
that "there is also a subjective -- or qualitative -- component
to the analysis under the statute." Skechers contends that its
manufacturing activities are "merely trivial or only incidental
to its principal business," and, therefore, not substantial.
Fernandes Super Mkts., Inc., 371 Mass. at 322, quoting
Commissioner of Corps. & Taxation v. Assessors of Boston, 324
Mass. 32, 39 (1949).
This contention is unavailing for at least three reasons.
First, Skechers did not raise this argument before the board,
relying instead on its position that it did not engage in
manufacturing at all. The argument is therefore waived. See
G. L. c. 58A, § 13 ("The court shall not consider any issue of
law which does not appear to have been raised in the proceedings
before the board"). Second, and in any event, a taxpayer's
manufacturing activities are substantial, by definition, if they
meet any one of the four quantitative tests. See G. L. c. 63,
§ 38 (l) (1). To the extent being considered a manufacturing
corporation is beneficial for a taxpayer -- for example, to 21
qualify for certain tax exemptions -- it is open to the taxpayer
to argue that even if it does not satisfy any of the four
quantitative tests, manufacturing nonetheless makes up a
substantial component of its activities. See 830 Code Mass.
Regs. § 58.2.1(6)(d) ("A corporation whose activities satisfy
none of the four tests for substantiality may nevertheless
qualify for manufacturing corporation classification by
establishing, through other relevant criteria, that its
manufacturing activities are substantial . . ."). But nothing
in the statute or regulations suggests that satisfying any of
the other four tests for substantiality is not dispositive.
Third, Skechers's argument fails on the facts. Its
manufacturing activities are neither trivial nor incidental.
Skechers's principal business is to design, market, and oversee
the production of footwear according to its quality standards
and specifications. Although Skechers denies it, the fact that
Skechers engages in manufacturing in substantial part is,
objectively, undeniable.
Conclusion. The decision of the Appellate Tax Board is
affirmed.
So ordered.