Antelope Valley Imp. and Service Dist. of Gillette v. State Bd. of Equalization for …, 98-352.
| Decision Date | 10 April 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-352.,98-352. |
| Citation | 4 P.3d 876,2000 WY 85 |
| Parties | ANTELOPE VALLEY IMPROVEMENT AND SERVICE DISTRICT OF GILLETTE, Appellant (Petitioner), v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION FOR the STATE OF WYOMING; and The Wyoming Department of Revenue, Appellees (Respondents). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant (no brief filed on petition): James L. Edwards of Stevens, Edwards & Hallock, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming.
Representing Appellee Wyoming Department of Revenue (no brief filed on petition): Jay A. Jerde, Assistant Attorney General.
Representing State Board of Equalization on petition: Michael L. Hubbard, Deputy Attorney General.
Before LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and HILL, JJ.
Antelope Valley Improvement and Service District of Gillette (Antelope Valley) applied to the Wyoming Department of Revenue (Department) for a sales and use tax exemption in 1997. The Department denied the application, and Antelope Valley filed an appeal with the Wyoming Board of Equalization (Board). On its own motion, the Board dismissed Antelope Valley's appeal as untimely. Antelope Valley appealed from the Board's decision, first to the district court, and then to this Court. Both the Board and the Department filed briefs as appellees. In Antelope Valley Improvement and Service Dist. of Gillette v. State Bd. of Equalization, 992 P.2d 563 (Wyo.1999), we held, among other things, that the Wyoming Board of Equalization (Board) was not a proper party to Antelope Valley's appeal from the Board's decision. The Board petitioned for rehearing, or in the alternative, for clarification of our ruling. We agreed to clarify our decision by order dated January 13, 2000.
The Board's petition and arguments fail to recognize the two distinct functions it performs pursuant to statute. We acknowledged these functions in Exxon Corp. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, Sublette County, 987 P.2d 158, 162-63 (Wyo.1999). With the legislative changes made in the 1991 Wyo. Sess. Laws ch. 174, the Board "became an independent quasi-judicial organization with constitutional and statutory duties to equalize valuation and decide disagreements regarding statutory provisions affecting the assessment, levy and collection of taxes." Id. at 162 (quoting Union Pacific Resources Co. v. State of Wyoming, Department of Rev., 839 P.2d 356, 363 (Wyo.1992)).
While it often functions as an administrative agency, the Board also has a separate and distinct role as an appellate body, hearing appeals from decisions by county boards of equalization and final decisions of the Department.1 See Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 39-1-302(c), -304(a) (Michie 1997); Exxon, 987 P.2d at 163. Referring to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-1-304 (Michie 1997), we discerned:
subsection (a) to be a part of the Board's adjudicatory function, i.e., that subsection gives the Board the power to hear appeals. Subsection (a)(xiv) (Section 14), on the other hand, is more closely aligned with the Board's regulatory function.
We do not disagree with the Board's contention that when the Board acts in its regulatory capacity and "any person adversely affected" by that decision appeals to the district court, the Board is the proper respondent to that appeal. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-1-306 (Michie 1997) provides for appeals from Board decisions, either adjudicatory or regulatory. However, when the Board functions in its adjudicatory capacity, it is not a proper party to an appeal from its order resulting from that proceeding. The law is well settled, and we reiterate it here: "Generally a court or board exercising judicial or quasi judicial functions, not being a party to its proceedings, and not having any legal interest in maintaining its determination, can neither appeal from a judgment or order of a court reversing the proceedings nor be heard on the appeal." Antelope Valley, 992 P.2d at 567 (quoting 4 C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 175 (1993)). In Antelope Valley's appeal to the Board, the Board was exercising its adjudicatory function; it was not a party to the proceedings and does not have any legal interest in maintaining its determination.
The Board claims it has a public interest in the appeal before this Court through its statutory and constitutional authority to equalize taxation throughout the state. However, this case was an appeal to the Board from a final decision of the Department; therefore, the Board was functioning in its adjudicatory capacity. The administrative agency representing the State of Wyoming's legal interest in the adversarial hearing before the Board was the Department. The adversarial parties before this Court remain the same, Antelope Valley and the Department. The Board, as the impartial tribunal below, may not inject itself into this proceeding because it was not acting in its regulatory capacity when it heard the matter and issued its order.
The Board does not present this Court with any pertinent authority to the contrary. The Board relies on administrative agency case law from other states. However, the statutory scheme providing for the Department and the Board directs the Board to hear appeals from decisions of the Department and county boards of equalization. Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 39-1-302(c), -304(a) (Michie 1997). When the Board acts in its adjudicatory capacity, the Board resembles a "lower tribunal," not an administrative agency. The Board's portrayal of its order, issued in the exercise of its adjudicatory authority, as an "administrative decision," is misguided.
The Board's insistence that it is a proper party to an appeal in cases in which it acted in its adjudicatory capacity is analogous to a district court's filing of a brief with this Court when one of its decisions is being appealed, in the hope that it can explain "the real reason why [it] rendered a particular decision." The Board's opportunity to explain its reasoning lies in its order, just as a district court's opportunity to explain its reasoning lies in its orders.
In 1998, the legislature recodified Title 39 of the Wyoming Statutes. The provisions relating to the Department of Revenue and the Board of Equalization are now found in Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 39-11-102, -102.1, and - 109(b) (LEXIS 1999). We have reviewed those statutes and emphasize, with boldface type, the statutory language which places the Board in an adjudicatory role, rather than a regulatory role:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Wyo. Dept. of Revenue v. UPRC
...Id. (citing Antelope Valley Improvement v. State Bd. of Equalization, 992 P.2d 563, 566 (Wyo.1999)) (opinion clarified at 4 P.3d 876 (Wyo.2000)). Wyoming statutes are silent on this issue. Obviously, had the legislature desired a different result, it could have easily so specified. [¶ 19] I......
-
Solvay Chems., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue, S-17-0324
..."Any other exercise of authority violates the clear intent of the legislature." Id.[¶16] In Antelope Valley Improvement and Service District v. State Board of Equalization , 4 P.3d 876 (Wyo. 2000), we further clarified the distinction between the Board’s regulatory and adjudicatory function......
-
CITY OF DOTHAN PERSONNEL BD. v. DeVane
...effects of the board's administrative and adjudicatory functions. Antelope Valley Improvement & Serv. Dist. of Gillette v. State Bd. of Equalization for Wyoming, 4 P.3d 876 (Wyo.2000) (hereinafter "Antelope Valley II"). The court characterized the board's administrative functions as "regula......
-
McCallister v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs.
...(Wyo. 2001) (citing Antelope Valley Improvement v. State Bd. of Equalization, 992 P.2d 563, 566 (Wyo. 1999), opinion clarified at 4 P.3d 876 (Wyo. 2000)). When an employee disagrees with the Division's determination of his worker's compensation claim, he may object and request a contested c......