ON REHEARING
Counsel for appellant taxpayer points out on rehearing that this court in that part of its opinion distinguishing Cities Service Gas Co. v. McDonald, 204 Kan. 705, 466 P.2d 277, in part relies upon a distinction between the Alabama and Kansas statutes. Able counsel contends there is, in effect, no valid distinction between the two statutes as discussed in our opinion. On further reflection, we agree. However, as noted above, this distinction was only partially relied on by the court, and is not essential in our holding that the Alabama regulation relied upon by the department of revenue was in effect.
Accordingly, the last paragraph on page 537 of our opinion and continuing on page 538 is omitted and substituted therefor is the following:
A distinction is noted between this case and the Kansas case relied upon by appellant. There was no what might best be described as policy in effect by the Kansas Department of Revenue to deal with this issue raised. We have earlier in this opinion held that Reg. 402.2 was in effect in our state to deal with the issue raised.
Original opinion extended and appellant’s application for rehearing overruled.
WRIGHT, P. J., and BRADLEY, J., concur.