AEG Processing Center No. 58, Inc. v. South Dakota Department of Revenue
2013 S.D. 75
| S.D. | 2013Background
- AEG Processing Center No. 58, Inc. challenged a SD Dept of Revenue jeopardy sales tax assessment for Sept 2007–June 2010.
- Hearing examiner found liability; the Secretary of Revenue adopted the decision; final notice date was Sept 17, 2012.
- AEG appealed to the Sixth Judicial Circuit on Oct 12, 2012; notice of appeal filed Oct 15, 2012.
- AEG did not pay the assessed amount nor post a bond within the 30-day window required by SDCL 10-59-9 and SDCL 1-26-31; a bond was posted Oct 26, 2012 after the window.
- Department moved to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction; circuit court dismissed the appeal.
- The court considers (1) jurisdictional effect of failing to pay/post within 30 days, (2) substantial compliance, and (3) equitable tolling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does failure to pay or post bond within 30 days deprive jurisdiction? | AEG argues timely bond/payment preserved jurisdiction under 10-59-9. | Department argues failure to pay or bond within 30 days defeats jurisdiction. | Failure within 30 days is fatal to jurisdiction. |
| Whether substantial compliance can cure the failure to timely pay/bond? | AEG contends substantial compliance could satisfy the statute's aims. | Department contends no, timeliness is essential and cannot be cured by substantial compliance. | Substantial compliance does not cure a jurisdictional defect. |
| Does equitable tolling apply to the 30-day timeline for filing an appeal? | AEG seeks tolling while awaiting remand discussions with the Department. | Department argues tolling is unavailable given lack of control and absence of prejudice. | Equitable tolling does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Claggett v. Dep’t of Revenue, State of S.D., 464 N.W.2d 212 (S.D. 1990) (condition precedent—payment or bond required to preserve appeal jurisdiction)
- Vitek v. Bon Homme County Bd. of Commissioners, 650 N.W.2d 513 (S.D. 2002) (bond timing distinguished from notice of appeal; jurisdictional impact)
- Bison Township v. Perkins County, 640 N.W.2d 503 (S.D. 2002) (bond filing within time limit—not always jurisdictional fault)
- Dakota Truck Underwriters v. S.D. Subseq. Injury Fund, 689 N.W.2d 196 (S.D. 2004) (equitable tolling considerations in county/other contexts)
- O’Neill Farms, Inc. v. Reinert, 780 N.W.2d 55 (S.D. 2010) (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss—jurisdictional questions as law)
- Sanford v. Sanford, 694 N.W.2d 283 (S.D. 2005) (legislative knowledge of prior decisions informs interpretation)
- Petition of Famous Brands, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 882 (S.D. 1984) (statutory interpretation principles guiding construction)
- S.D. v. Hass, 816 N.W.2d 96 (S.D. 2012) (statutory interpretation—plain language)