McNeil v. Weiss
2011 Ark. 46
Ark.2011Background
- McNeil, employed by UAMS in 2007–2008, received income but reported to DFA that he had none for those years.
- DFA issued final tax assessments for 2007 and 2008 on November 12, 2009 and November 26, 2009, respectively.
- McNeil, pro se, petitioned for mandamus in circuit court challenging DFA’s tax assessments as illegal and unconstitutional.
- DFA moved to dismiss on grounds including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, procedural failures under the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, failure to state a claim, and improper illegal-exaction pleading.
- Circuit court dismissed, finding lack of jurisdiction and failure to plead the claims properly; appellate review affirmed the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court properly dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. | McNeil contends DFA’s actions are unlawful and outside tax-procedure requirements. | DFA argues petition failed to meet Tax Procedure Act requirements and had no valid illegal-exaction claim. | Affirmed: circuit court dismissal on subject-matter-jurisdiction grounds stands. |
| Whether the petition sufficiently stated facts to support relief. | McNeil asserts DFA improperly taxed him despite no taxable income. | DFA argues the petition lacks factual pleading to support relief. | Affirmed: insufficient facts for relief. |
| Whether the petition adequately stated an illegal-exaction claim under Ark. Const. art. 16, § 13. | McNeil claims tax via force of law violates constitutional protections. | DFA argues illegal-exaction claim not properly pleaded. | Affirmed: illegal-exaction claim not properly pleaded. |
| Whether the circuit court should consider merits arguments ignored due to procedural deficiencies. | McNeil emphasizes merits of non-taxable-income theory. | Court should not consider merits where procedural grounds exist. | Affirmed: procedural grounds control; merits not reached. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality v. Oil Producers of Ark., 318 S.W.3d 570 (Ark. 2009) (standard for reviewing dismissals on motion to dismiss; treat allegations as true)
- Ark. Tech. Univ. v. Link, 17 S.W.3d 809 (Ark. 2000) (fact pleading required; liberal construction)
- Widmer v. Taylor, 756 S.W.2d 903 (Ark. 1988) (affirming dismissal when appeal lacks developed argument)
- Martin v. Pierce, 257 S.W.3d 82 (Ark. 2007) (principle that appellate court will not develop appellant's argument)
- Coleman v. Regions Bank, 216 S.W.3d 569 (Ark. 2005) (two independent grounds support dismissal; failure to brief one grounds affirmance)