state/ador v. Wendtland
1 CA-TX 18-0044
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Jun 13, 2019Background
- In 2004 Wendtland had $596,745 federal adjusted gross income and did not file an Arizona income tax return.
- The Arizona Department of Revenue audited him, mailed a Notice of Proposed Assessment dated July 29, 2015, finding $28,627.99 due (plus penalties and interest), and the Notice gave a 90‑day protest deadline (Oct. 27, 2015).
- Wendtland did not petition the Department within 90 days and did not pay the assessment; the assessment became final under A.R.S. §§ 42‑1108, 42‑1251(D).
- The Department sued to collect; it moved for summary judgment attaching the Notice and an affidavit that no timely protest was received; Wendtland did not oppose the motion in the tax court.
- The tax court granted summary judgment for the Department; Wendtland filed a postjudgment Motion for New Trial/reconsideration asserting nonresidency and lack of discovery, which the court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wendtland) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department was entitled to summary judgment because the assessment became final after Wendtland failed to timely protest | The assessment is final under § 42‑1251(D); Department mailed Notice and no timely protest was filed | Wendtland argued he never received a constitutionally adequate administrative hearing and disputed the assessment amount | Court affirmed: assessment became final; Department’s evidence (Notice and affidavit) showed no timely protest, so summary judgment proper |
| Whether the tax court abused discretion by denying Wendtland’s postjudgment Motion for New Trial (claiming nonresidency and incomplete discovery) | Denial proper because administrative protest period had passed and refund‑after‑payment route was available but unused; discovery objections could have been raised earlier | Wendtland asserted he was not an Arizona resident and lacked discovery to oppose summary judgment | Court affirmed: new evidence could not cure failure to exhaust administrative remedy or pay then seek refund; no abuse of discretion in denying relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilderness World, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue State of Ariz., 182 Ariz. 196 (1995) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Kent K. v. Bobby M., 210 Ariz. 279 (2005) (apply plain‑language statutory interpretation when statute is unambiguous)
- Rosenberg v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 118 Ariz. 489 (1978) (due process requires notice and opportunity for hearing)
- Waltner v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 231 Ariz. 484 (App. 2013) (abuse of discretion standard for motions for new trial)
- City of Phoenix v. Geyler, 144 Ariz. 323 (1985) (abuse of discretion standard applied to vacatur)
- Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Smith, 166 Ariz. 489 (App. 1990) (party seeking more time for discovery must request continuance under Rule 56(d))