455 P.3d 918
Okla.2019Background
- Plaintiff Video Gaming Technologies, Inc. (VGT) owns electronic gaming equipment leased to the Creek Nation and protested Tulsa County's 2018 ad valorem assessment as federally preempted.
- VGT filed complaints with the Tulsa County Board of Tax Roll Corrections (Dec 6, 2018; refiled Apr 5, 2019); the Board dismissed the protest with prejudice on May 14, 2019.
- VGT petitioned for de novo review in Tulsa County District Court under 68 O.S. § 2871 on May 29, 2019.
- The County Assessor moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing 68 O.S. § 2884 requires payment of disputed taxes (and notice) for appeals and VGT had not paid the 2018 taxes.
- The district court granted the dismissal; VGT appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which retained the case.
- The central legal question was whether § 2884 applies to § 2871 appeals (Board of Tax Roll Corrections) such that nonpayment is a jurisdictional bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (VGT) | Defendant's Argument (Assessor) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 68 O.S. § 2884 applies to appeals from the Board of Tax Roll Corrections under 68 O.S. § 2871 | § 2884 does not apply; earlier case law and statutory language limit § 2884 to boards of equalization | § 2884 applies generally to appeals affecting value/taxable status and therefore governs § 2871 appeals | Court: § 2884 does NOT apply to § 2871 appeals; statutory history and § 2884(E) show § 2884 is limited to equalization appeals |
| Whether nonpayment of disputed taxes is a jurisdictional prerequisite to district court review of a § 2871 appeal | Nonpayment is not jurisdictional for § 2871 appeals because § 2884 does not govern those appeals | Nonpayment should abate/dismiss the appeal under § 2884 as a jurisdictional requirement | Court: Nonpayment is not a jurisdictional bar to § 2871 appeals; district court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Presbyterian Hospital, Inc. v. Board of Tax-Roll Corrections of Oklahoma County, 693 P.2d 611 (Okla. 1984) (discussed historical view that § 2884 applied to equalization appeals)
- Darby v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 202 P.2d 978 (Okla. 1949) (legislative amendment of plain statute indicates intent to change law)
- Neer v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 982 P.2d 1071 (Okla. 1999) (statutory terms given plain meaning; tax statutes construed in taxpayer's favor when doubtful)
- Neumann v. Tax Commission of the State of Oklahoma, 596 P.2d 530 (Okla. 1979) (tax doubts resolved for taxpayer)
- Broadway Clinic v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 139 P.3d 873 (Okla. 2006) (apply plain meaning absent ambiguity)
- Rogers v. Quiktrip Corp., 230 P.3d 853 (Okla. 2010) (standard of review for dismissal is de novo)
- Bomford v. Socony Mobil Oil Co., 440 P.2d 713 (Okla. 1968) (court must dismiss if without jurisdiction)