Mississippi Department of Revenue v. AT & T Corp., 101 So. 3d 1139

AT&T filed Mississippi income tax returns for 1993–1996, initially using the combined method (1993) and then allegedly using the consolidated method (1994–1996) to challenge the statutory distinction.
An audit in 1997 resulted in an Assessment of $5,105,038 (later reduced to $5,088,516) against AT&T for additional taxes, penalties, and interest.
AT&T paid the Assessment and filed a Petition in chancery court seeking constitutional relief and a refund, but did not post a bond as required by statute.
The chancery court bifurcated proceedings: first, constitutionality of the statutes; second, Mississippi tax computations if unconstitutional.
The chancery court held the challenged statutes unconstitutional and awarded AT&T $12,727,174, including interest, but the Commission appealed and AT&T contested only the interest award.
On review, the Mississippi Supreme Court held AT&T failed to comply with appellate procedures (bond requirement) under 27-7-73 and related statutes, depriving the chancery court of appellate jurisdiction; the remedy was to vacate the chancery orders and leave the Commission’s order in effect.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the chancery court's appellate jurisdiction valid given bond noncompliance?	AT&T argues Section 27-7-73 and Khurana/5K Farms support jurisdiction despite bond issues.	Commission contends failure to post bond bars proper appellate jurisdiction.	Chancery lacked appellate jurisdiction; bond requirement mandatory and not satisfied.
Does Section 11-13-11 authorize a predeprivation or refund remedy for improper taxes here?	AT&T relies on 11-13-11 as a jurisdictional basis for refunds and equitable relief.	Commission argues no predeprivation relief since taxes were paid; §11-13-11 not applicable.	Section 11-13-11 does not apply because taxes were paid under protest and no restraint on collection existed.
Should the court reach the merits of the constitutional challenges given jurisdiction defects?	AT&T contends the court had jurisdiction to declare unconstitutionality and fashion relief.	Commission argues lack of jurisdiction requires dismissal without reaching merits.	The court lacked jurisdiction to decide merits; the order is vacated and the Commission's order remains in effect.

McKesson Corp. v. Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, 496 U.S. 18 (U.S. 1990) (predeprivation remedies safeguard due process; refunds may be limited if no predeprivation remedy)
Davis v. Barr, 157 So.2d 505 (Miss. 1963) (equitable relief need not be available where statutory remedies exist)
Khurana v. Mississippi Department of Revenue, 85 So.3d 851 (Miss.2012) (bond requirement is jurisdictional for appellate review; failure defeats appeal)
5K Farms v. Mississippi Department of Revenue, 94 So.3d 221 (Miss.2012) (pretrial bond requirement governs appellate jurisdiction; cannot waive)
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (jurisdiction is foundational; courts must determine jurisdiction first)
Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506 (U.S. 1869) (historic note on appellate jurisdiction limits)