to be valid. If we were to accept such an argument, not only would it result in inequity to the debtee, it would incentivize the debtor to prolong the litigation because the longer the matter remained unresolved, the greater the debt that would be absolved. ¶25 Pursuant to § 15-68-110(4), MCA, the OTCs are liable for payment of the Sales Tax from the date the Department filed this lawsuit: November 8,2Q10. CONCLUSION ¶26 We affirm the District Court’s decision that the Lodging Facility Use Tax, §§ 15-65-101 through 136, MCA, does not apply to OTC fees. We reverse the District Court’s decision that the Sales Tax, §§ 15-68-101 through 820, MCA, does not apply to OTC fees. The OTCs are fia -76) (emphasis removed); Expedia, Inc. v. City of Columbus, 681 S.E.2d 122, 128 (Ga. 2009) (<HOLDING>) (citing Columbus Code § 19-111). 4 Because we
holding that a hotel security guard was not liable under  1983 merely because he called police and brought the police to the plaintiffs hotel room holding that a hotel guest has a legitimate expectation of privacy in his room during the period of time for which the room is rented holding that a visitor to a hotel room for purposes of distributing drugs failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the room holding that a 7 excise tax based on the charge to the public for a hotel room applied to the price expedia demands from the consumer for the right to occupy the hotel room and not the price expedia agrees to pay the hotel for the room holding that defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy in a hotel room rented by relatives when he had a key to the room and permission to use the room at will