Akins v. Miss. Dep't of Revenue
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00599-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-22-2011 Opinion Author: King, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Tax assessment - Section 27-77-7 - Due process - Pre-deprivation process - Section 27-77-5 - Post-deprivation process Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-09-2010 Appealed from: Hinds County Chancery Court Judge: Patricia D. Wise Disposition: The Appellee assessed a contractor’s tax against the Appellant. Appellant exhausted his administrative remedies, and appealed to the Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County which dismissed his complaint for failure to comply with Mississippi Code Section 27-77-7 (Rev. 2005), which requires a taxpayer seeking judicial review to pay the amount ordered before filing the petition or attach a security bond, for double the amount in controversy, with the petition to appeal. Case Number: G-2009-1237 W/4 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Walter D. Akins d/b/a Akins Construction Company |
HARRIS H. BARNES, III
JAMES GARY MCGEE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Department of Revenue f/k/a Mississippi State Tax Commission | JAMES L. POWELL KENITTA FRANKLIN TOOLE | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Tax assessment - Section 27-77-7 - Due process - Pre-deprivation process - Section 27-77-5 - Post-deprivation process |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mississippi Tax Commission assessed a contractor’s tax against Walter Akins, d/b/a Akins Construction Company. Akins challenged the assessment administratively. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Akins appealed to chancery court. The chancellor dismissed his complaint for failure to comply with section 27-77-7, which requires a taxpayer seeking judicial review to pay the amount ordered before filing the petition or attach a security bond, for double the amount in controversy, with the petition to appeal. Akins appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Akins argues that he is being deprived of his day in court. His argument involves the concept of procedural due process. To prevail, Akins must prove he was deprived of a protected property interest and he was denied the process due him. Generally, due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. In the context of tax assessments and collections, a meaningful opportunity to be heard requires that a taxpayer be provided with either a pre-deprivation process or post-deprivation process to contest the validity of an imposed tax. Section 27-77-5 provides a pre-deprivation process in which a taxpayer has the opportunity to be heard. An aggrieved taxpayer may first appeal to the Board of Review. From there, the taxpayer may appeal to the full Commission, consisting of the Commissioner and two Associate Commissioners. Akins availed himself of both of these opportunities and was heard by both administrative bodies. Akins argues that administrative review is not sufficient, and he is entitled to judicial review. However, administrative-review procedures are adequate in providing due process if the hearings are conducted before an individual is deprived of a property interest. Here, Akins was afforded due process. In order for a post-deprivation process to satisfy the Due Process Clause, the State must provide taxpayers with a fair opportunity to challenge the accuracy and legal validity of their tax obligation and a "clear and certain remedy" for any erroneous or unlawful tax collection. Section 27-77-7 requires the taxpayer to pay the amount in controversy or post a bond for double the amount before seeking judicial review. The requirement to pay the tax before seeking judicial review has been held to provide taxpayers with a fair opportunity to challenge the validity of the tax. Akins argues that he paid sales tax and deserves a refund or credit for what he paid over and above what was due as contractor's tax. Akins was provided a post-deprivation process, a fair opportunity to challenge the tax and the ability to receive a refund if successful. Thus, Akins was afforded due process. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
