The opinion
DISSENTING OPINION BY
Senior Judge McCLOSKEY.
I respectfully dissent as I disagree with the conclusions reached by the majority in this case. I begin by noting that this is a finance and revenue matter subject to de novo review by this Court. 1 The record in this case consists solely of a partial and a supplemental stipulation of fact, along with attached exhibits, submitted by the parties.
Upon review of these stipulations, the majority concludes that Northeastern Pennsylvania Imaging Center (Northeastern) has objectively shown an intention that the MRI and PET/CT systems become part of their real estate. The majority also concludes that the MRI and PET/CT systems were intended to remain in place as long as the building continued to be used as an imaging center, until the systems become obsolete or until either the age of the equipment or advancements in medical technology necessitate their replacement. I believe that these conclusions are overbroad and do not accurately reflect the facts as stipulated to by the parties.
In the stipulations, the parties simply noted that “[i]n some cases, MRIs and PET/CT scanners are relocated and reused. An MRI or PET/CT scanner would generally be refurbished before reuse and recalibration would be required ... An MRI or PET/CT scanner may be replaced for several reasons, including, among others, the placement of a new or more technically proficient model.... ” (Supplemental Stipulation of Facts, Paragraph 28, p. 5). Additionally, the parties indicated in the stipulations that they “presently” had no plans to replace the MRI or PET/CT systems. (Partial Stipulation of Facts, Paragraph 15, p. 5; Supplemental Stipulation of Facts, Paragraph 45, p. 10).
Based upon the above stipulated facts, I simply cannot accept the conclusion reached by the majority that at the time the MRI and PET/CT systems were placed in the building, Northeastern intended that these systems be a permanent part of said building. Moreover, the rapid advancement in medical technology fights against the majority’s conclusion. In fact, leasing of this type of equipment is becom *1067 ing the norm because of the need to remain current with the technology.
For these reasons, I would affirm the order of the Board of Finance and Revenue.
. Although this Court hears appeals from the Board of Finance and Revenue in our appellate jurisdiction, this Court functions essentially as a trial court. Concentric Network Corporation v. Commonwealth, 897 A.2d 6 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006), affirmed, 592 Pa. 26 , 922 A.2d 883 (2007). A stipulation of facts is binding and conclusive upon the Court, but we may draw our own legal conclusions from those facts. Id.