In Matter of Arrow Park, Inc., DTA No. 826879 (N.Y.S. Div. of Tax App., July 14, 2016), an Administrative Law Judge held that a Notice of Deficiency asserting liability for the MTA surcharge was not barred by the statute of limitations, finding that, although Arrow Park had filed forms CT-4 (the short form franchise tax return) for the tax years in issue, it had not included the CT-3M/4M (the MTA surcharge return) so the statute of limitations for the MTA surcharge never started running. The ALJ rejected Arrow Park’s argument that, because it had filed franchise tax returns for the years in issue, and had been assessed for a previous year’s MTA surcharge, the Department was on notice that the MTA surcharge was due and had sufficient information to assess it. The ALJ found that Arrow Park’s argument was foreclosed by the Tax Appeals Tribunal’s decision in Matter of Kaiser Aerospace Electronics Corp, DTA. No. 812828 (N.Y.S. Tax App. Trib., Jan. 16, 1997), which held that the MTA surcharge return is a separate return, and that the filing instructions for the CT-3M/4M make clear that it is a separate return with independent statutory filing obligations, so that the filing date of the CT-3/CT-4 does not control.