Oral arg. – Miss.S.Ct. – Jan. 30, 2017

at 10:30 the Court will hear the Tunica County Board of Supervisors v HWCC Tunica, LLC

The  Tunica County Board of Supervisors decided to  to increase their ad valorem tax levy for their Fiscal Year 2015 budget.  Hollywood Casino was the only taxpayer to object.  The vote to increase the tax took place on September 15, 2014.  There was a September 30 meeting scheduled for taxpayers to be heard on the topic.  On October 10, Hollywood Casino filed a bill of exception that was not signed by the Board president. The circuit court held a hearing and vacated the vote finding that the Board of Supervisors had not correctly advertised it as per statute, M.C.A.  § 27-39-203 (2)(a).  The court held that all taxpayers of Tunica County would  be entitled to a refund.

tunica-brief

hollywood-casino-brief

tunica-reply-brief

Watch the argument here

 

At 1:30 the Court will hear the case of Marlena Robinson v. Ed Morgan Commissioner of the Department of Revenue.

Robinson was an owner along with her husband of a tire repair shop, D&M Enterprises.  They divorced and the business was administratively dissolved. In 2014, the Dep’t of Revenue assessed Mrs. Robinson with  $69,083.55 for the outstanding sales taxes and $6,686.34 for the outstanding withholding taxes.  She appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals arguing that she had not exercised financial responsibility for the business. She lost and perfected an appeal to the Hinds County Chancery Court where the Dep’t of Revenue asked that her case be dismissed because she failed to post a bond.  The chancellor do ordered and Mrs. Robinson appeals.

She argues:

In granting the MDOR’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the Chancellor incorrectly determined that the Taxpayer’s appeal should be governed by an outdated version of Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7 which required that a surety bond be posted with the lower court before appellate jurisdiction could be perfected. In making this determination, the MDOR and the Chancellor relied on an ambiguous “savings clause” drafted in Section 19 of H.B. 799 and later included as an Editor’s Note in the final version of that statute. As the plain language of the present version of Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7 has clearly abolished this bond requirement, the Taxpayer was under no mandate to post a guaranty bond. For this reason, the dismissal of her appeal was improper.

 

robinson-brief

dept-of-revenue-brief

Robinson reply brief.pdf

 

Watch the argument here

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s