Per Curiam Opinion
PER CURIAM:
¶1 Nasrulla Khan seeks judicial review of the Utah State Tax Commissions April 29, 2016 decision. We decline to disturb the Commissions decision.
¶2 Khan asserts that the Utah State Tax Commission (Commission) erred by declining to deduct his loss carry forwards from his household income. Khan filed for a renters credit under Utah Code section 59-2-1209, which provides property tax relief for certain persons who own or rent their places of residence. Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-1201 (LexisNexis 2015). A renters credit is based on the household income for the previous calendar year. See id. § 59-2-1209(1). Income for the purposes of calculating a renters credit is defined, in part, as the sum of federal adjusted gross income and statutorily identified, nontaxable income. See id. § 59-2-1202(6)(a). Loss carry forwards are identified as nontaxable income. See id. § 59-2-1202(6)(b)(ii). Khans central argument is that his loss carry forwards should be deducted from his household income, rather than included therein.
¶3 This court recently rejected Khans arguments in his previous request for judicial review of the Commissions prior decision. See Khan v. Tax Commn, 2016 UT App 142, ¶ 1, 377 P.3d 702. As the Commission correctly asserts, in Khan , this court determined that Utahs statutory term loss carry forwards was synonymous with loss carryover used in the federal income tax, and that it was not a deduction that offsets Khans income for the purposes of determining his renters refund, but is instead added to his AGI to determine his household income. Id . ¶ 17.
¶4 Khans arguments in the present matter are contrary to this courts decision in Khan. Although Khan asserts that this courts prior decision is contrary to the Property Tax Act, Khan has not adequately distinguished his current arguments from this courts precedent, nor demonstrated cogent reasons for departing from Khan . Moreover, the legal doctrine of horizontal stare decisis binds this court to its prior decision, and the first decision by this court on a particular question of law governs subsequent decisions by the same court. See State v. Tenorio , 2007 UT App 92, ¶ 9, 156 P.3d 854. This court may depart from its precedent only in rare circumstances where this court is clearly convinced that the prior decision was erroneous, the decision is no longer sound due to changing circumstances, and that more good than harm will come by departing from its precedent. See id. With regard to Khans central argument that his loss carry forwards should be deducted from his income, Khan has not persuasively distinguished Khan nor has he satisfied his significant burden of demonstrating why this court should depart from precedent.
¶5 Khan raises six issues for judicial review, but with one exception, his supplementary issues may be fairly characterized as efforts to bolster his argument that loss carry forwards should be deducted from his household income. Without the requisite citation to legal authority or development of that authority, Khan next asserts that the Commission violated Utah law by not requiring its application form for a renters credit to separately delineate the applicants loss carry forwards under Utah Code section 59-2-1202. As the Commission correctly notes, the application form does have a section to list other income received under Utah Code section 59-2-1202, such as support money received. See Utah Code Ann. § 59-2-1202(6)(b). Khan fails to demonstrate that the Commissions application form violates Utah law by failing to separately delineate each of the statutory examples of nontaxable income set forth in Utah Code section 59-2-1202.
¶6 Khan fails to meet his significant burden in demonstrating that this court should depart from its previous decision in Khan , and that the Commission violated Utah law in the format of its application for a renters credit. We therefore decline to disturb the Commissions determination.