Brachtl v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue
| Decision Date | 06 October 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 175,175 |
| Citation | 48 Wis.2d 184,179 N.W.2d 921 |
| Parties | Henry C. BRACHTL, Jr., Appellant, v. WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court for Dane county which dismissed the taxpayer's petition for the review of a Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission decision and order on the grounds that the taxpayer had failed to serve a copy of the petition for review on the Tax Appeals Commission within thirty days after the Commission's order was served on the taxpayer.
William Bradford Smith, Lilliam F. Schultz, Madison, for appellant.
Robert W. Warren, Atty. Gen., Allan P. Hubbard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Madison, for respondent.
The taxpayer's (appellant's) position is a simple one. He concludes that sec. 227.16(1), Stats., which sets forth the procedural requirements for an appeal or review of a decision and order of the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission does not require that there be a service of the petition for review on the Tax Appeals Commission in addition to the service on the State Department of Revenue.
Sec. 227.16(1), Stats., in its pertinent parts reads as follows:
* * *' (Emphasis supplied.)
It should be noted that subsequent to the enactment of sec. 227.16(1), Stats., the Board of Tax Appeals referred to therein was renamed Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission, and the Department of Taxation has been renamed Wisconsin Department of Revenue.
The statute involved is complex and if read in a cursory fashion could be confusing. We are satisfied, however, that its provisions are clear and that the requirement that the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission be served is explicitly set forth in the statute. The section quoted clearly states that the review proceeding must be instituted by service upon the agency 'within 30 days after the service of the decision of the agency upon all parties.' It is undisputed that the Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission was the tribunal which made the decision. It is, by this language, made the necessary party to be served as a part of the review procedure. The section also provides that the 'agency whose decision is sought to be reviewed' should be designated the respondent except in the case of the Board of Tax Appeals (now Tax Appeals Commission), where the Department shall be named the respondent. It is again apparent that the word, 'agency,' in this section therefore refers to the Tax Appeals Commission and not the Department of Revenue.
The section also provides that 'The agency (except in the case of the board of tax appeals * * *) * * * shall have the right to participate in the proceedings for review. * * *' It is therefore clear that, where elsewhere referred to in the section, the Board of Tax Appeals was the 'agency.' If that were not so, the legislature would not have found it necessary to provide this exception disallowing the agency, the Tax Appeals Commission, from the right to participate in the proceedings.
The statute is unambiguous, and we are satisfied that the plain meaning of the statute requires service upon the Tax Appeals Commission. This inexorably leads to the conclusion that this omission deprived the circuit court of jurisdiction to review the findings and order of the Tax Appeals Commission.
The right of appeal from a statutory administrative tribunal is dependent upon strict compliance with the statutes. 2 Am.Jur.2d, Administrative Law, sec. 716, p. 618; Monahan v. Wisconsin Department of Taxation (1963), 22 Wis.2d 164, 125 N.W.2d 331.
The appellant herein, however, concludes that in this particular case such holding is contrary to the spirit of ch. 227, Stats., the Wisconsin Administrative Procedure Act, whose purpose is discussed in a law review article by Ralph M. Hoyt, one of the principal authors of the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Teaching Assistants Ass'n v. University of Wisconsin-Madison
...Wis.2d 253, 224 N.W.2d 570; Claflin v. Department of Natural Resources, 58 Wis.2d 182, 206 N.W.2d 392 (1973); Brachtl v. Department of Revenue, 48 Wis.2d 184, 179 N.W.2d 921 (1970); Broadbent v. Hegge, 44 Wis.2d 719, 172 N.W.2d 34 (1969).26 In Lister, 72 Wis.2d at 303, 240 N.W.2d at 623 the......
-
All Star Rent a Car v. Wi Dept. of Transp.
...104 Wis.2d 277, 283, 311 N.W.2d 586 (1981); 519 Corp. v. DOT, 92 Wis.2d 276, 286-88, 284 N.W.2d 643 (1979); Brachtl v. DOR, 48 Wis.2d 184, 187, 179 N.W.2d 921 (1970)). However, as we also pointed out in Peterson, a "companion rule" to this proposition is that strict compliance depends upon ......
-
City of Eau Claire v. Booth
...State v. Omernik, 54 Wis.2d 220, 194 N.W.2d 617 (1972) ; McCabe v. Milwaukee, 53 Wis.2d 34, 191 N.W.2d 926 (1971) ; Brachtl v. DOR, 48 Wis.2d 184, 179 N.W.2d 921 (1970) ; Bublitz v. Matulis, 34 Wis.2d 23, 148 N.W.2d 64 (1967) ; Monahan v. Dep't of Taxation, 22 Wis.2d 164, 125 N.W.2d 331 (19......
-
Shopper Advertiser, Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue
...proceeding pursuant to sec. 227.16(1)(c), deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Accord, Brachtl v. Department of Revenue, 48 Wis.2d 184, 188, 179 N.W.2d 921, 923 (1970). While the supreme court has held that immaterial defects such as incorrectly captioned pleadings are not jur......