Marlena Robinson v. Ed Morgan, 214 So. 3d 188

Marlena Robinson was assessed personally as a responsible person for D&M Enterprises’ unpaid 2012–2013 sales and withholding taxes (assessment dated Feb. 4, 2014).
Robinson exhausted administrative review: Board of Review and Board of Tax Appeals both upheld the assessment.
Robinson appealed to Hinds County Chancery Court on June 1, 2015, but did not post a surety bond or pay the taxes under protest.
Prior to Jan. 1, 2015, Miss. Code § 27-77-7 required posting a bond for half the assessed tax (or paying under protest) to invoke chancery court appellate jurisdiction.
The Legislature amended § 27-77-7 in 2014 (effective Jan. 1, 2015) to eliminate the bond/payment requirement, but House Bill 799 included a saving clause preserving the pre-amendment law for assessments with initial dates before the amendment’s effective date.
The chancery court dismissed Robinson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to post bond or pay; the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the chancery court has jurisdiction over Robinson’s appeal given she failed to post bond or pay taxes under protest	Robinson: The post‑amendment statute (no bond/payment required) should govern appeals filed after Jan. 1, 2015, so no bond was required for her June 2015 appeal	Dept. of Revenue: The saving clause in H.B. 799 makes the pre‑amendment bond/payment requirement apply because the assessment date (Feb. 4, 2014) preceded the amendment’s effective date	Held: The saving clause controls; because the assessment predated Jan. 1, 2015, Robinson was subject to the pre‑amendment bond/payment requirement and the chancery court lacked jurisdiction when she failed to comply
Whether the saving clause is ambiguous or unenforceable because it conflicts with the amended statutory text	Robinson: The amended statute’s plain language (“no taxpayer shall be required…”) makes the saving clause inapplicable or ambiguous; taxpayers cannot be expected to find the saving clause in the publisher’s editor’s note	Dept. of Revenue: The saving clause is a standard legislative device preserving prior law for prior assessments; publication format does not affect the clause’s validity	Held: The saving clause is a valid legislative tool; any perceived conflict is inherent to saving clauses and the General Laws govern if publication formatting varies

Southside, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Revenue, 158 So. 3d 277 (Miss. 2014) (failure to post bond or pay taxes under protest deprives chancery court of appellate jurisdiction)