Hart v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n
| Decision Date | 26 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 38756.,38756. |
| Citation | 301 P.3d 627,154 Idaho 621 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Philip L. HART, Petitioner–Appellant, v. IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION and Idaho Board of Tax Appeals, Respondents. |
Starr Kelso, Coeur d'Alene, argued for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondents. William A. Von Tagen argued.
This case involves Philip L. Hart's appeal of an Idaho Board of Tax Appeals (BTA) decision. Hart appealed two State Tax Commission Notice of Deficiency determinations to the BTA. The BTA found Hart's appeal untimely and therefore dismissed it. Hart appealed to the district court, which likewise found his BTA appeal untimely and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm the district court.
The State Tax Commission (Commission) issued Hart two Notice of Deficiency (NOD) determinations on September 4, 2008. One NOD covered tax years 1996 through 1998 and the other was for 1999 through 2004. The Commission issued separate NODs because Hart paid no income taxes for the years 1996 through 1998. He apparently paid some taxes, but less than he owed, for 1999 through 2004. Hart protested the NODs and requested that the Commission make a redetermination, contending he had no outstanding tax liability. Hart also requested an informal hearing before the Commission, which he delayed until July 2009. After the hearing, and after Hart's further delay and failure to provide additional relevant information in support of his protest, the Commission issued a decision on September 30, 2009, affirming and finalizing the NODs. Hart acknowledged receiving the Commission's final decision on October 2, 2009. The Commission's final decision indicated that Hart owed $53,523 for unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest for tax years 1996 through 2004. On December 31, 2009, Hart wrote the Commission, stating that he intended to appeal the NODs after the Idaho Legislature's 2010 session. Hart is a member of the Idaho State Legislature and he asserted that he therefore had a right to defer his appeal.
On March 30, 2010, Hart sent a letter to the BTA entitled "Notice of Appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals." Included with that letter were two checks, totaling $9,462.04, which Hart tendered as a portion of the cash bond necessary for his BTA appeal. Hart recognized, however, that his outstanding tax liability, as specified in the NODs, required a bond greater than he submitted. Hart thus asked the BTA to "consider [his] letter [a] promise to pay the remaining [amount]." Hart's March 30 letter did not include any specific objections to the Commission's findings, but it did state that he would submit arguments in a subsequent filing. On March 31, 2010, Hart sent another letter to the BTA entitled "Notice of Appeal to the Idaho Board of Tax Appeals." That letter included Hart's objections to the NODs. The BTA, upon motion from the Commission, determined it lacked jurisdiction because it found Hart's appeal untimely. The BTA denied Hart's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal on September 24, 2010.
On October 22, 2010, Hart filed an appeal of the BTA decision. The district court, upon motion by the Commission, likewise determined it lacked jurisdiction, finding Hart's BTA appeal untimely. Hart filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied. Hart then filed this appeal and asks this Court to determine whether the district court erred in dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. He also contends the district court erred when it denied his motion to reschedule a hearing on his motion to reconsider.
On appeal, Hart contends that the district court employed an improper analysis to determine it lacked jurisdiction. The Commission and BTA respond that, regardless of how the court articulated the standard it used, the court had broad authority to determine whether it had jurisdiction.
In every appeal, this Court must satisfy itself that the district court had jurisdiction. See State v. Johnson, 152 Idaho 41, 47, 266 P.3d 1146, 1152 (2011). The Court is free to consider the question of subject matter jurisdiction even if the district court employed an improper analysis, or no analysis, on the issue. See id. Before a district court may exercise judicial review of an agency decision, there must be a statute granting a right of review. See In re City of Shelley, 151 Idaho 289, 292, 255 P.3d 1175, 1178 (2011). Idaho Code § 63–3812(a) provides taxpayers aggrieved by a BTA decision the right to petition the district court for review, in accordance with I.R.C.P. 84. However, "[p]ursuit of statutory administrative remedies is a condition precedent to judicial review." Park v. Banbury, 143 Idaho 576, 578, 149 P.3d 851, 853 (2006). A party seeking judicial review must "run the full gamut of administrative proceedings before an application for judicial relief may be considered." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). To fully avail oneself of administrative proceedings, one must necessarily timely file and perfect his or her appeal. A taxpayer may appeal decisions of the Commission by filing an appeal from an NOD with the BTA within ninety-one days after receiving the NOD.1 I.C. § 63–3049(a). If the BTA had no opportunity to review the taxpayer's appeal, there is no administrative decision for the district court to review and that court lacks jurisdiction.
Here, Hart acknowledged receipt of the Commission's decision affirming and finalizing the NODs on October 2, 2009. Hart had until January 1, 2010—ninety-one days after receiving the Commission's final decision—to file his appeal with the BTA. Because January 1 was a holiday, and the next two days were weekend days, the BTA determined the appeal deadline to be Monday, January 4, 2010. It is undisputed that Hart sent his first "Notice of Appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals" on March 30, 2010, nearly three months late. In the BTA, Hart asserted that his untimely filing was excused because Article III, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution tolled the statutory ninety-one day time limit as to him. According to Hart, legislative immunity saved him from having to file an appeal during the legislative session and the ten days just before the session. The 2010 Session began on January 11. So, Hart argued that January 4—the apparent deadline for his appeal—fell within the timeframe contemplated by Article III, § 7.
As the district court recognized, the BTA accepted Hart's argument arguendo but nonetheless found his filing untimely because his March 2010 "Notices of Appeal" failed to comply with the BTA's rules for appeals. The district court likewise assumed that, even if Hart's time for filing was tolled during the legislative session, he still filed his "Notices of Appeal" late. That approach is understandable, since this Court has yet to address the merits of a legislative immunity argument like Hart's. But administrative agencies are tribunals of limited jurisdiction, which depends entirely upon compliance with their statutory grant of power. Washington Water Power Co. v. Kootenai Envtl. Alliance, 99 Idaho 875, 879, 591 P.2d 122, 126 (1979). The BTA was not authorized to assume jurisdiction if not statutorily provided for. In other words, if Hart's appeal should have been filed on January 4, 2010, the BTA was without jurisdiction to consider any of Hart's filings after that. It is therefore necessary to determine whether Hart's legislative immunity argument has merit.
Article III, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution privileges Idaho's legislators from arrest and from liability to civil process during the legislative session. Specifically, Section 7 provides:
Senators and representatives in all cases, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace, shall be privileged from arrest during the session of the legislature, and in going to and returning from the same, and shall not be liable to any civil process during the session of the legislature, nor during the ten days next before the commencement thereof....
Hart contends, the word "process," as used in Section 7, means "proceeding." At oral argument, Hart's counsel characterized appeals from adverse rulings as legal proceedings subject to Section 7 's privilege. According to Hart, a legislator is privileged from conforming to the typical time limits for appeals while the Legislature is in session, and the ten days before the legislative session. Hart conceded that Section 7 cannot toll statutes of limitation for a legislator to file a new lawsuit, which he characterized as affirmative legal proceedings. He was, however, unable to articulate a meaningful distinction between affirmative legal proceedings, like a new law suit, and permissive appeals, like this case involves.
Hart's untenable argument flows from his misunderstanding of the word "process." In the legal context, "process" does not mean "proceeding." "Strictly speaking, [‘]process,’ as its etymology shows, is something issuing out of, or from a court or judge...." People v. Nash, 1 Idaho 206, 210, 1868 WL 1944 (Idaho Terr.1868). See also Black's Law Dictionary 1325 (9th ed.2009) (defining "process" as "[a] summons or writ, esp. to appear or respond in court"); Webster's II New College Dictionary 881–82 (1999) (defining "process," when used in the legal context, as "[a] summons or writ ordering a defendant to appear in court"). Idaho courts have broad authority to compel appearance before them, and to compel obedience to their orders and "process." See I.C. § 1–1603 (); Marks v. Vehlow, 105 Idaho 560, 566, 671 P.2d 473, 479 (1983) (); Camp v. E. Fork Ditch Co., Ltd., 137 Idaho 850, 865, 55 P.3d 304, 319 (2002) (same). See also I.C. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
7, Position "B". Phil Hart v. Shepherd (In re Contest of the Election (Primary Election-Republican Nomination) for State Representative in Legislative Dist. No.)
...1146, 1152 (2010). Hart's argument on this issue is devoid of reasoned analysis or relevant authority." Hart v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n , 154 Idaho 621, 625, 301 P.3d 627, 631 (2012). Hart points to Idaho Code section 34-2126, which required the district court to render a decision within ten......