5K Farms, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue
2012 Miss. LEXIS 233
| Miss. | 2012Background
- 5K Farms challenged pretrial bond requirements under Miss. Code Ann. §§ 27-77-5, -27-77-7 (Rev.2005) in an appeal from the Mississippi State Tax Commission decision.
- MSTC assessed a solid-waste fee; Board of Review upheld; Commission reduced the assessment to $138,133.
- Chancery Court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction due to failure to post the bond/pay the tax.
- 5K Farms sought supersedeas and posted a pauper’s affidavit; chancery court denied relief and dismissed the case.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, and this Court granted certiorari to address whether the bond statute relates to appellate jurisdiction and is constitutional.
- The issue presented includes whether the bond requirement is procedural or jurisdictional and its compatibility with separation of powers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bond statute is constitutional as jurisdictional. | 5K Farms: statute unconstitutional as intrusion on judiciary. | MSTC/State: bond is within legislative jurisdiction over appellate process. | Constitutional; bond relates to appellate jurisdiction. |
| Whether the bond requirement is procedural rather than jurisdictional. | 5K Farms contends it is a procedural precondition. | Legislature may set appellate prerequisites. | Statute is jurisdictional. |
| Whether constitutional review of the bond provision can be raised on appeal. | Issue should be reviewable on appeal. | Review limited by procedural rules. | Constitutional questions may be reviewed on appeal; de novo standard applied. |
| Whether Wimley/Jones precepts control the analysis here. | Wimley/Jones support procedural view. | Distinguishable; involves agency appeals, not original suit. | Not controlling; distinct statutory context. |
| Whether the 2010 amendments affect the issue. | Not at issue; 2010 text differs. | Amendments not under review here. | Not dispositive to the 2005 version analyzed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wimley v. Reid, 991 So.2d 135 (Miss. 2008) (unconstitutional provisions require supplemental briefing; distinction procedural vs. jurisdictional)
- Jones v. Ridgeland, 48 So.3d 530 (Miss. 2010) (statute governing appellate procedure viewed as procedural but distinguishable from agency-appeal bonds)
- Patterson v. State, 594 So.2d 606 (Miss. 1992) (matters of jurisdiction may be raised for the first time on appeal)
- Colburn v. State, 431 So.2d 1114 (Miss. 1983) (collected to describe jurisdictional limits in appeals)
- Mabus v. Mabus, 890 So.2d 806 (Miss. 2003) (special rules governing constitutional challenges to taxation statutes)