Akins v. Mississippi Department of Revenue
2011 Miss. LEXIS 464
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Akins was assessed Mississippi contractor's tax for 2002–2005 after an audit.
- Akins argued he paid sales tax on component materials and sought offset/credit against the contractor's tax.
- Board of Review reduced the tax to $20,139; the Commission affirmed the reduction to that amount.
- Akins sought chancery court review and argued for credit/refund of taxes paid in protest.
- Chancery court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Akins did not pay the tax or post a bond as required by Section 27-77-7.
- Akins appealed, contending the statute and procedures violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Section 27-77-7 provide constitutionally adequate due process for tax appeals? | Akins contends the pre- and postdeprivation remedies are insufficient or unconstitutional. | Mississippi argues the statute satisfies due process by providing predeprivation and postdeprivation review and a refund remedy. | Statute satisfies due process; procedures are adequate. |
| Is there a protected property interest in the tax assessed and a due-process right to challenge it? | Akins claims the tax exaction constitutes property deprivation without adequate process. | Tax exaction is a property deprivation but is adequately safeguarded by predeprivation and postdeprivation review. | Yes, tax exaction is a property deprivation; due process satisfied by procedures. |
| Did Akins have to pay the tax or post a bond to obtain judicial review in chancery court? | Akins argues he should be allowed judicial review despite the timing of payment/bond due to ample credits. | Section 27-77-7 requires payment or a bond before filing for judicial review. | The chancery court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Akins failed to pay or post bond. |
Key Cases Cited
- McKesson v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (1990) (tax exaction can be challenged postdeprivation with a refund remedy)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) (balancing process due with private interest, risk of error, and government burden)
- Jones v. Mississippi Department of Transportation, 744 So.2d 256 (Miss. 1999) (due process requires protected interests be provided a hearing)
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982) (predeprivation vs postdeprivation process in due process)
- H.J. Wilson Co., Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 737 So.2d 981 (Miss. 1998) (refund as a remedy for overpayment provides relief in postdeprivation review)