Vermont Golf Association, Inc. v. Department of Taxes, 57 A.3d 707

Vermont Golf Association challenged a superior court dismissal of its appeal from a Department of Taxes sales and use tax assessment on entry fees for golf tournaments.
The Department notified Vermont Golf that failure to post security under 32 V.S.A. § 9817 could lead to dismissal of the appeal; Vermont Golf did not post security.
The Department then moved to dismiss; the superior court granted the motion, treating security as mandatory to perfect an appeal.
Vermont Golf argued (i) security is not a mandatory condition to appeal, (ii) post-audit remittance could permit review, (iii) denial of a stay was an abuse of discretion.
The court held § 9817(a) requires posting security to perfect an appeal; failure to post security is a fatal defect that justifies dismissal; post-audit payments do not cure the deficiency; the stay issue was not reached due to the security requirement.
The concurrence discusses statutory ambiguity and legislative history, emphasizing pay-to-play characteristics and calling for clarifying revisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is posting security mandatory to perfect an appeal under §9817(a)?	Vermont Golf contends security is not a prerequisite to appeal.	State asserts §9817(a) requires security to perfect an appeal.	Yes; posting security is mandatory to perfect an appeal.
Can post-audit tax remittance salvage the appeal without security?	Remittance after audit should allow review.	Remittance does not satisfy the mandatory security requirement.	No; post-audit payment does not cure the security deficiency.
Did the 1998 amendment to §9817 change pay-to-play requirement?	Amendment clarified language, not substantively change pay-to-play.	Amendment did not alter the pay-to-play interpretation.	No substantive change; statute remains pay-to-play.
Does Rule 74 interact with §9817's security requirement to stay a decision?	Rule 74 should govern stays independently of security.	Security prerequisite controls whether review proceeds.	Security controls the right to proceed; Rule 74 does not override.

F.M. Burlington Co. v. Comm’r of Taxes, 134 Vt. 515, 365 A.2d 531 (1976) (taxpayer rights under special statutes and public interests)
Perry v. Medical Practice Board, 169 Vt. 399, 737 A.2d 900 (1999) (legislative history clarifies regulatory authority)
Rock v. Dep’t of Taxes, 170 Vt. 1, 742 A.2d 1211 (1999) (pay-to-play interpretation in tax appeals)
Hoffer v. Ancel, 29 M.J. (cit.) (2004) (due process under pay-to-play tax review)
Tarrant v. Dep’t of Taxes, 169 Vt. 189, 733 A.2d 739 (1999) (statutory interpretation and legislative intent)
Morton Bldgs., Inc. v. Vt. Dep’t of Taxes, 167 Vt. 371, 705 A.2d 1384 (1997) (interpretation of tax statute and deference to agency)
In re Guardianship of L.B., 147 Vt. 82, 510 A.2d 1319 (1986) (jurisdictional vs. procedural steps in appeals)
Holden v. Campbell, 101 Vt. 474, 144 A.455 (1929) (timeliness and procedural requirements for remedies)