 |
 |
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
al division of the Department to generally disconnect executive department tax collection activities from the rule making and review function retained by the State Board of Equalization provides a justification for differentiation of rights of appeal by the Department for judicial review . . . .@ Id. The Department has been granted the authority to appeal an adverse decision of the Board. Id. (citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. ' 39-1-306 (1991)). AThe Board has authority to hear contested cases and to promulgate rules and regulations pursuant to the WAPA. Any other exercise of authority violates the clear intent of the legislature.@ Basin Electric, 970 P.2d at 849.
In Basin Electric we also held that the Platte County Board of Commissioners lacked standing to appeal from the Board=s decision because a board is not a Aperson@ as defined under the tax statutes and the Wyoming Administrative Procedures Act. Id. at 848. Similarly, the Board of Equalization lacks standing to submit an appellate brief with this Court. The appeal from a board decision A>is merely a continuation of those proceedings [board=s] in an appellate tribunal.=@ Anita Ditch Co. v. Turner, 389 P.2d 1018, 1021 (Wyo. 1964) (quoting Willey v. Decker, 11 Wyo. 496, 73 P. 210, 227 (1903)). A ny person who is not a party in an original action is not a necessary party to an appeal . . . .@ Id. at 1022. Clearly, the Board was not a party to the original action and cannot be a party to this appeal. The proper parties to this appeal are Antelope Valley, as the Ainterested person adversely affected,@ and the Department of Revenue, whose decision was appealed to the Board. Therefore, we strike the Board=s brief and have not considered it in our decision in this matter.
CONCLUSION
The Board of Equalization properly found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this case because the appeal was not timely filed in accordance with the Board=s Rule. Antelope Valley does not contend it did not have a reasonable opportunity to respond to the decision of the Department of Revenue; therefore, due process concerns were not implicated. Finally, the Board of Equalization was the adjudicatory authority below and is not a proper party to an appeal from its own decision.
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.
|
|