514 P.2d 221 | Utah | 1973
The defendant appeals from an order of contempt made by the district court in a supplemental proceeding wherein the State Tax Commission was attempting to secure some information regarding the assets belonging to the defendant.
The conduct of the defendant was clearly contumacious, and he does not contend to the contrary. His defense is based upon the proposition that the state income tax law is unconstitutional.
The defendant made a tax return containing no information. He struck the wording about its being made under the penalty of perjury, signed it, and returned it to the plaintiff. Subsequently, pursuant to law,
Despite the Eleventh Amendment to the Federal Constitution as interpreted by the case of Hans v. Louisiana,
Petitioner’s central claim appears to be that no administrative agency has the power to levy upon and cause a sale of the petitioner’s property for the payment of delinquent taxes even though the machinery of the court is invoked to effect the sale and adequate notice, right to hearing and prior and subsequent judicial review are assured (as they appear to be by Utah law; e. g., Utah Code Annotated, Section 59-14-29, 59-14-39 to 42), the power of administrative agencies under such circumstances has long been established.
Our statute
The statute does not deny due process to a recalcitrant taxpayer for the reason that such a one has a right to be heard regarding the determination of his tax
Mr. Hoopes refused to avail himself timely of the due process of law afforded by the statute, and the determination of the tax by the Commission became final.
Since the statutes and the procedure outlined therein did not deprive Mr. Hoopes of
The judgment of contempt rendered in the district court is affirmed. No costs are awarded.
. Sec. 69-14-58, U.C.A.1953.
. Sec. 59-14-29, U.C.A.1953.
. Sec. 59-14r-40, U.C.A.1953.
. 134 U.S. 1, 10 S.Ct. 504, 33 L.Ed. 842 (1889).
. Hoopes v. State Tax Commission, Civil No. 369-72.
. Coffin Bros. & Co., et al., v. Bennett, 277 U.S. 29, 48 S.Ct. 422, 72 L.Ed. 768 (1928); Phillips v. Com., 283 U.S. 589, 51 S.Ct. 608, 75 L.Ed. 1289 (1931).
. Sec. 59-14-60, U.C.A.1953.
. Secs. 59-14-29 to 31, U.C.A.1953.
. Sec. 59-14-40, U.C.A.1953.
. Sec. 59-14-39, U.C.A.1953.