 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Antelope Valley Improvement and Service District of Gillette v. State Board of Equalization for the State of Wyoming12/9/1999
Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, Judge
Antelope Valley Improvement and Service District of Gillette (Antelope Valley) applied to the Department of Revenue (Department) for a sales and use tax exemption in 1997. The Department denied the application by final decision letter dated October 15, 1997, and Antelope Valley filed its appeal November 17, 1997. The Board of Equalization (Board) dismissed the appeal as untimely filed, and Antelope Valley appealed to the district court, which affirmed the decision of the Board.
In its appeal before this Court, Antelope Valley argues the Board=s rule concerning filing of appeals violates due process because it does not require actual notice before the time for appeal begins to run. Antelope Valley also contends the Board=s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The Board applied its properly promulgated rules, which have the force and effect of law, and its decision is supported by substantial evidence. There is no evidence in the record that Antelope Valley did not have an opportunity to respond and be heard. Absent that evidence, due process is not implicated. Therefore, we affirm the decisions of the district court and the Board.
ISSUES
Antelope Valley presents this statement of the issues for review:
I. Did the Board of Equalization have sufficient evidence upon which to base its decision?
II. Did the district court improperly affirm the Board of Equalization=s dismissal of the appeal of Antelope Valley?
The Department of Revenue presents these issues:
I. Whether the Wyoming State Board of Equalization acted in accordance with law when it dismissed the appeal of Antelope Valley with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
II. Whether the Wyoming State Board of Equalization acted contrary to constitutional right when it dismissed the appeal of Antelope Valley with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
FACTS
By letter dated October 15, 1997, the Department denied a request by Antelope Valley for a sales and use tax exemption. The letter notified Antelope Valley that it was a final administrative decision subject to appeal to the Board Awithin thirty (30) days of this notice date.@ Antelope Valley filed a case notice of appeal with the Board on November 17, 1997. After reviewing the notice, the Board issued a notice of its intent to dismiss the appeal with prejudice because the appeal was untimely filed. After accepting briefs from both parties and affidavits from Department employees on the timeliness issue, the Board issued its decision that it was without jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was untimely filed.
Antelope Valley timely filed a petition for review of the order of dismissal with the district court, and the district court affirmed the Board=s order. Antelope Valley now appeals to this Court seeking review of the order of dismissal.
DISCUSSION
Standard of Review
In reviewing an administrative agency decision on appeal, this Court shall hold unlawful and set aside agency action found to be: (1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; (2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; (3) without observance of procedure required by law; or (4) unsupported by substantial evidence. Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 16-3-114(c)(ii)(A), (B), (D) and (E) (LEXIS 1999). Antelope Valley contends the Board=s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is relevant evidence which a
Page 1 2 3 4 Wyoming Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|