I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 3 - CA- 0 0 0 7 3 - S CT KA RMJ I T S. VI RK d / b / a GA SP L US
v. M I S S I S S I P P I DEP AR T M EN T OF RE VENUE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 12/ 2012 TR I A L J U D G E: H O N
. PA TR I CI A D
. W I SE CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT J AM ES G. M c GEE , J R. ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: J O N F . C A R M E R , J R
. J AM ES L. POW ELL CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 03/ 06/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

B E F O R E D I C K I N SO N , P . J. , L A M A R A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ. LAM AR, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. K arm

j i t V i rk appea l ed an i ncr eas e i n hi s t ax l i abi l i t y t o t he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m ent of R evenue ’ s B oar d of

R evi ew . W hen V i r k fa i l ed t o appea rathi s B oar d of R evi ew hear i ng, hi s appea l w as i nvol unt ar i l y w i t hdr aw n. V i r k’ s a ppeal s t o the B oar d of Tax A ppeal s and the H i nds C ount y C hance r y C ou rtb ot h w er e di s m i s s ed. Fi ndi ng no err or , w e af f i r m t he d e c isio n s o f th e B o a rd o f R e v iew , the B o a rd o f T a x A p p e a ls, a n d th e H in d s C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt.1 

### htt

p:/ /www. dor. ms .gov/

( la st vi si te d Marc h 4, 2014). MDOR is cr eate d by Sec ti on 27 -3- 19 of

the Mis si ss ippiCode
. Mi ss . Code Ann. § 27- 3-19 (Re v. 2013). Its specific re spons ibi li ti es and power s ar e se t out in Sec ti on 27-3-31. Mis s. Code Ann. § 27- 3-31 ( Rev. 2013). Vir

k owns Ga s Plus, a c onveni enc e s tor e l ocate d in J ac kson, Mis si ss ippi . The 2 

### as se ss me nts wer e i ss ued on June 28, 2011. Virkexecuted a P ow er of A ttorn ey an d D eclarationof R epresentationform w ith 3 

### MD ORo nJu ly 1 2, 2 01 1, n aming Mich ael Mah on ey, a certifiedpublic acco untant, as h is repre se ntati ve. Th e Bo ard o f Rev iew is createdbySectio n 2 7-7 7-3 of the Mississip pi C od e. Miss. 4 

### Code Ann. § 27-77- 3 (Re v. 2010)
. The Boa rd of Revi ew he ar s app eals from taxpay ers re garding tax a ss es sm ent s, re fund 5 

### deni al s, and t ag pe nal ty wa ive r de nia ls that ar e is sue d by MDOR. Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 5(1) (Re v. 2010)
. Mahone y ac ti vely repre sented Virkunti l at l ea st theend of

August of 2011, 6 

### cons ide ri ng that on Augus t 2 2, 2011, Mahoney a ske d for and pa id f

or c opie s of

Vir k’s Au gu st 20 07 to 2 01 0 sales taxreturn s. 2

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2
. T he M i s s i s s i ppi D epar t m entof R evenue ( M D O R) “ i s the pr i m ar y agenc y f or col l ect i ng t ax r evenue s t hats uppor ts t at e and l ocal gover nm ent s i n M i s s i s s i ppi
. ” I n 2010, 1 M D O R audi t ed K arm

j i tV i r k (V i r k) and ass es s ed hi m $8, 679 i n i ndi vi dual i ncome t axes f or 2008 and 2009, and $67, 933 i n sal es t axes forA ugus t1, 2007, t hr ough D ece m ber31, 2010. 2 T w o w eeks af

t ert he as s es s m ent s w er e i s s ued, V i r k not i f i ed M D O R t hathe w as r epr es ent ed by hi s cert i f

i ed publ i c ac count ant , M i chae l M ahoney. 3 ¶3. V i r k t i m el y appea l ed t he as s es s m ent s , and hi s heari ng before t he B oar d of R evi ew
w as s chedul ed forO ct ob er13, 2011. M D O R i nf or m ed M ahoney of

t he hea r i ng dat e by 4 ,5 l et t erda t ed A ugus t18, 2011. B etw een A ugus t18, 2011, a nd O ct ober7, 2011, the part i es 6
m a d e n o a tte m p t to c o m m u n ic a te w ith e a c h o th e r. O n O c to b e r 7 , 2 0 1 1 , L a ta s h a H o lt, a

### Vir

k cl ai ms that hec ould not atte nd the heari ng a s sc hedul ed for m edi ca l re as ons but 7 

### “a dmi ts that he did not s pec if ic al ly de sc ribe the m edi ca l c ondition”duri ng his phone conve rs ation wi th Hol t, nor di d he m akea writte n re ques t f or a continuance . See Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 5(2) (Re v. 2010) : 8 

### the taxpay er or h is desig natedrepresen tative sh all attendth e hearin g unless a re ques t i s m adeto, and grante d by, the board of revi ew to a ll ow thetaxpaye r to s ubmi t hi s pos ition in wri ting or by e le ctroni c transmi ss ion in li eu of atte ndanc e. Fai lur e of

the taxpaye r or hi s de si gnat ed r epres ent ativeto att end a he aring or

to s ubmi t hi s pos ition in wri ting or by e le ctroni c transm is si on by thedat e spe ci fi ed by the board of r evi ew or by the he aring date , i f no datewas specified , shall co nstitute a with draw al of th e app eal. See Mis s. Code Ann § 27- 77-5( 8) ( Rev. 2010) ( st ating “ [i ] f the wi thdr awa l of appe al 9 

### i s i nv olunt ary, thea dm i ni s tr at i vea pp e a lbo dyf

r om wh om thea pp ea l is beingwi thdr awn sha llnoteon it s m inutes th e in vo luntary wi thdr awa l of theappe aland the ba si s f or the withdrawal ”)
. 3 M D O R empl oyee, cal l ed M ahoney t o r emi nd hi m of V i r k’ s he ar i ng, a nd M ahoney i nf or m ed h e r th a t h e n o lo n g e r re p re s e n te d V irk . H o lt th e n c a lled V irk d ire c tly . V irk c laim s th a t, dur i ng t hi s phone ca l l , he as ked f orhi s hear i ng dat e t o be pos tponed, and thatH ol tdeni ed h is re q u e st. 7 ¶4. V i r k di d not at t end hi s hear i ng on O ct ober 13, 2011, no r d i d he subm i t hi s pos i t i on t o the B oar d of

Revi ew “ i n w r i t i ng orby el ectr oni c t r ans m i s s i on. ” The Boar d of R evi ew found t hat he had w i t hd raw n h i s appea l i nv olunt ari l y an d n oted this fi nd i ng i n it s m i nu t es. 8 V irk w a s in fo rm e d b y lette r d a ted Ja n u a ry 1 2 , 2 0 1 2
. T h re e m o n th s la ter , V irk a p p e a led to 9 t he B oar d of

T ax A ppeal s . M D O R r es ponded by f i l i ng a mot i on t o di s m i s s , al l egi ng t hat “[ V i r k’ s ] appea l w as pr oper l y t r eat ed as i nvol unt ar i l y w i t hdr aw n . . . and t hatt he
as s es s m ent s tt hatar e the bas i s of t he appe al ar e f

i nal and nots ubj ectt o f

ur t herre vi ew . ” T he

### Th e chan cery co urt d eclinedto ad dress S ection27 -77 -7 (3 )’ s b on d requirement, 10 

### st ating t hat [T] his Court

sha llnot go into t

he de ta il s of V irk’s a

ppea l, me ani ng Vir

k’s Moti on to Forego Suret

y Bond Re quirement , or th e like, b ecause su ch w ou ld be r evi ewi ng Vir

k’s tax as se ss me nt. At this point theonly option t

his court has is to dismiss V irk’s Petition to t his Court bec aus e Se ction 27-77 -5(8) al lows him

no furthe r r evi ew or

re li ef
. See Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77-7( 3) ( Rev. 2010) ( st ating “ [a ] petition f il ed by a taxpaye r un der sub section(1) of this section that app eals an order of the Bo ardo f T ax Ap p eals af fi rm ing a tax as se ss me nt sha llbe accom pani ed by a sure ty bond approve d by the c le rk of thecour t in a s um ha lf

theam ount in controve rs y, cond ition ed to pay thejudgm ent of the court” ). 4 B o a rd o f T a x A p p e a ls a g re e d w ith M D O R a n d issu e d an o rd e r g ra n tin g M D O R ’s m o tio n to dis m i ss. ¶ 5
. V irk a p p e a led th e B o a rd o f T a x A p p e a ls o rd e r to th e H in d s C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt,
ar gui ng t hat“ t he B oar d of Revi ew ’ s de ci s i on t o notgr anta cont i nuance and i t s s ubs equent inv o lun tary w ith d raw al of h is ap p ea l w as a rbit rary an d ca p ri ciou s . . . [and that] the B o ard of T ax A ppeal s [ ’ ] deci s i on t o di s m i s s hi s appea l w as i m pr oper . ” M D O R count er ed thatt he chanc ery cour tdi d nothave j ur i s di ct i on t o he art he appe al beca us e V i r k had f ai l ed t o pr ovi de t he r equi r ed s ur ety bond, and t he chanc ery cour tw as st atut or i l y pr ohi bi t ed by Sect i on 27- 77- 5( 8) of t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ode f r om r evi ew i ng an i nvol unt ar i l y w i t hdr aw n app eal
. T he
c h a n c ery co u rthe ld a he aring on D ec em b er 4, 20 1 2 , th at f o cu sed on w h ethe r V irk h a d to
co m p ly w ith the s u rety-b o n d req u ir em en t. O n D ec em b er 1 2 , 2 0 1 2 , the c h an ce ry c o u rt gr ant ed M D O R ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s , f i ndi ng that“[Sect i on 27- 77- 5( 8) ] i s cl ear . I f a t ax
as s es s m enti s i nvol unt ar i l y orvol unt ar i l y w i t hdr aw n, t her e s hal l be no f ur t herr evi ew of

t hat t ax as s es s m ent . ” V i r k t i m el y appeal ed t o t hi s C our t , chal l engi ng t he cha ncery cour t ’ s t ax 10

### Th e chan cery co urtd eclinedto ad dress S ection27 -77 -7(3 )’s bo ndrequ irement, 11 

### st ating t hat [T] his Court

sha llnot go into t

he details of Vi rk’ s a

ppea l, me ani ng Vir

k’s Moti on to Forego Suret

y Bond Re quireme nt , o r th e lik e, b ecause suchwo uld be r evi ewi ng Vir

k’s tax as se ss me nt. A t this point theonly option t

his court has is to dismiss V irk’s Petition to t his Court b eca

useSec ti on 27-77- 5(8) al lows him

no furthe r r evi ew or

re li ef
. See Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 7(3) (Re v. 2010) (s tating “[ a] petition fi le d by a t axpayer un der subsectio n (1 ) o f th is s ec ti onthat app eals an o rder o f the B oardof T ax App eals af fi rm ing a tax as se ss me nt s hal l be ac com pani ed by a

sur ety bond approved by the c le rk of thecour t in a s um ha lf

theam ount inco ntrovers y, c onditione d to pa y thejudgm ent

of the court” ). W.C. Fore

v. Miss. Dep’t of

Revenue , 90 So. 3d 572, 577 ( Mis s. 2012). 12

### Id. (i nte rna l quot ations and c it ations omi tt ed)
. 13 

### 5 asse ssm e n t.” V irk ti m ely a p p ea led to this C o u rt , ch all en g ing the c h an ce ry c o u rt ’s

11 i nt erpr et at i on of

Sect i on 27- 77- 5 of

t he M i s s i s s i ppi C ode. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶6. J udi ci al r evi ew of an admi ni s t r at i ve agenc y’ s deci s i on i s l i m i t ed. T ypi cal l y, “tr i al 12
cour t s and appe l l at e court s w i l l r ever s e the dec i s i on of an admi ni s t r at i ve age ncy onl y i f t he deci s i on ( 1) w as uns uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence ; ( 2) w as arbi t r ary and ca pr i ci ous ; ( 3)
w as beyond the pow erof the adm i ni s t r at i ve agenc y t o m ake; or ( 4) vi ol at ed t he compl ai ni ng p arty’s statutory o r co n sti tuti o n al ri g h t. ” H o w e v er, an ag en cy ’s i n terpretati o n o f a 13 governi ng s t atut e i s s ubj ectt o de novo re v iew a s “ [t] h e u lti m a te a u th o rity a n d re sp o n sib ili ty

### Id. 14

### Id. 15 

### King v . Bunt on , 43 So. 3d 361, 363 ( Mis s. 2010). 16 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 5 (Re v. 2010)
. 17 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 5(1- 3) ( Rev. 2010). 18 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 5(4- 7) ( Rev. 2010). 19 

### 6 to in ter p re t th e law , inc lu d in g sta tu tes , res ts w ith th is C o u rt.” T h e g ra n t o f a m o tio n to 14 i nterprett he law , i ncludi ng st atutes , res t s w i t h thi s C ou rt . ” T he g rantof a m oti on t o d i sm i ss 15 al s o i s s ubj ectt o de novo r e v i e w. 16 L A W A N D A N A L Y S IS ¶ 7
. T h e iss u e s o n a p p e a l a re w h e th e r S e c tio n 2 7 -7 7 -5 o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o d e p ro h ib its an i nvol unt ary w i t hdr aw al of a t ax appea l f

r om be i ng r evi ew ed, w hetherV i r k w as de ni ed due p ro c e ss , an d w h e th e r th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt h a d ju risd ictio n to h e a r V irk ’s a p p e a l. I. E ffect o f S ec ti o n 2 7 -77 -5 ¶8
. T h e foc u s o f this ap p ea l is S ec ti o n 2 7 -77 -5 o f the M issi ssipp i C o d e. S ec ti o n 2 7 -77 -5
es t abl i s hes a tw o- t i err evi ew pr oces s f ort ax appe al s . T i erone i s t he B oar d of Revi ew , and 17 t i ert w o i s t he B oar d of

T ax A ppeal s . A l l t ax appe al s begi n w i t h t he B oar d of R evi ew and 18
are d ispo sed o f i n o n e o f th ree w ay s: ord er, vo lun tary w ith d raw al, o r i n v o lun tary
w i t hdr aw al
. T he part i es di s put e w hethera n i nvol unt ary w i t hdr aw al att he B oar d of R evi ew 19
s t age c an be a ppeal ed t o t he B oar d of T ax A ppeal s . T he author i t y of t he B oar d of

T ax A ppeal s and the ef

f ectof an i nvol unt ary w i t hdr aw al ar e addr es s ed i n s ubs ect i ons 4 and 8 of

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 5(4) (Re v. 2010)
. 20 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 5(8) (Re v. 2010) (e mpha si s a dded)
. 21 

### Buff ingt on v. Miss. Stat

e Tax Comm’

n , 43 So. 3d 450, 454 ( Mis s. 2010). 22 

### 7 S ect i on 27 -77-5, res pecti vely. S ub sect i on 4 st at es: A ny t axpaye raggr i eved by a n or derof the [ B ] oar d of

[ R ] evi ew af

f i r m i ng a t ax as s es s m ent , t he deni al of a r ef und clai m , or the deni al of a w ai verof

t ag penal t y, and w ho w i s hes t o cont es tt he or dershal l , w i t hi n si xt y ( 60) days f r om t he dat e of

the or derof

the [ B ] oar d of

[ R ] evi ew be i ng c ont es t ed, f i l e an a ppeal t o the B oard of T ax A pp eal s. 20 S u b se c tio n 8 sta tes : A tany t i m e af

t ert he f i l i ng of a n appea l t o t he [ B ] oar d of [ R ] evi ew orf

r om t he [ B ] oar d of

[ R ] evi ew t o t he B oar d of Tax A ppeal s undert hi s sec t i on, an appea l c a n b e w ith d ra w n . S u c h a w ith d ra w a l of an ap p e a l m a y b e m a d e v o lu n tar ily by t he t axpaye rorm ay occ uri nvol unt ar i l y as a r es ul tof

the t axpaye rf

ai l i ng t o appe arat

a s c he du l e d h e ar i ng, f ai l i ngt o make a wr i t t e n s ub m is s i on or el ectr oni c tr ans m is s i on i n l i eu of at t endance ata hear i ng by t he dat e s peci f i ed o r by the h ea ri n g d ate, i f no d ate w as sp ec if ied, or b y an y o ther a ct or failure t hatt he [ B ] oar d of

[ R ] eview o r the B oar d of T ax A ppeal s det erm i nes rep rese n ts a fail u re o n the p art of th e taxp ay er to p rose cu te his ap p ea l .
. . . If t he w i t hdr aw al of appe al i s i nvol unt ary, the admi ni s t r at i ve appe al body f r om w h o m the a p p ea l i s b eing w ith d raw n sh all n o te o n it s m inu tes t h e inv o lun tary w ith d ra w a l o f th e a p p e a l an d th e b a sis fo r th e w ith d ra w a l. O n c e a n a p p e a l is w i t hdr aw n, w hethervol unt a ry o ri nv ol un t a ry, t he ac t i on f r om w hi ch the appe al w as t aken, w hethera t ax ass es s m ent , a deni al of r ef und cl ai m , a deni al of wai v e ro f

t a x p e n a l t y , o ra n o r d e ro f t h e [ B] o a r d o f

[ R] e v i e w, s h a l l b e c o me fi n al an d no t su b

ject to furthe r r ev iew b y the [B ] o ard o f [ R ] ev iew , the B o ard o f T a x A p p e a ls o r a c o u rt. 21 ¶ 9
. If S e c tio n 2 7 -7 7 -5 is u n a m b ig u o u s, its p lain m e a n in g sh o u ld b e a p p lie d b u t, if it i s
a m b ig u o u s, ru les o f sta tu to ry c o n stru c tio n sh o u ld b e u se d to d e ter m in e its leg isla tiv e in ten t. 22 V irk arg u es th at si n ce S ec ti o n 2 7 -77 -5 “ d o es n o t exp ressly b ar fu rth er rev iew o f de n ial o f a cont i nuance and r es ul t anti nvol unt ary w i t hdr aw al on appea l ” t he st at ut e i s ambi guous and t hatf ur t herr evi ew of

s uch dec i s i ons “i s s uppor t ed by l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y, an in p a ri m a ter ia

### See a lso Miss. C od e Ann. § 27 -77 -5(2 ) (stating “[f]ailure of th e taxp ay er or h is 23 

### des ignated r epr es ent ativeto att end a heari ng or t o subm it

his posi ti on in writing or by el ec tronic tr ans mi ss ion by the dat e spe ci fi ed by the [B] oard of [R] evi ew or by the he aring dat e, if no dat e wa s s pec if

ie d, s hal l c onstit

utea wi thdr awa l of

theappe al ”)
. Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 5(8) (Re v. 2010)
. 24 

### Mis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 5(4, 8) ( Rev. 2010). 25 

### 8 anal ys i s of

r el at ed s t atut es , and equi t y j ur i s di ct i on of chanc ery cour t s . ” M D O R ar gues t hat Sect i on 27- 77- 5 i s unambi guous and “mak es i tcl eart hatt he B oar d of R evi ew ’ s ‘ deni al of
a c o n tin u a n c e a n d in v o lu n ta ry w ith d ra w a l f lo w in g th e re fr o m ’ i s n o t a re v ie w a b le m a tte r.” W e a g r e e wi t h M DOR. ¶ 1 0
. S e c t i o n 2 7
- 7 7
- 5 ( 8 ) s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t a n a p p e a l c a n b e i n v o l u n t a r i l y wi t h d r a wn i f a t axpaye rf

ai l s t o at t end hi s hear i ng and that“[ o] nce a n appea l is w i t hdr aw n, w hether 23 vol unt ary ori nvol unt ary, t he ac t i on f r om w hi ch the appe al w as t aken .
. . s hal l become f i nal and nots ubj ectt o f

ur t herr evi ew by t he [ B ] oar d of [ R ] evi ew , t he B oar d of T ax A ppeal s or
a court . ” A s suc h, t her e w as no s t atut or y author i t y t o hearV i r k’ s appea l i n t he B oar d of

24 T a x A p p ea ls o r th e H ind s C o u n ty C h an ce ry C o u rt . In the w o rds o f th e ch an c e ry c o u rt,

“ [f ]a ilin g to a tte n d th e h e a ri n g s e a le d [V ir k ’s ] fa te a n d m a d e h is a s s e s s m e n t f in a l.” ¶ 1 1
. A d d iti o n a lly , su b se c tio n 8 re q u ir e s a n in v o lu n tar y w ith d ra w a l to b e d o c u m e n ted in t he B oar d of

R evi ew ’ s m i nut es , as opposed t o an or der , and s ubs ect i on 4 author i zes t he B oar d of T ax A ppeal s t o h ear app eal s onl y f r om B oar d of

R evi ew or der s . T her e w as no 25 B oar d of R evi ew or deri n thi s c as e. W e f i nd thatSec t i on 27- 77- 5 i s unambi guous and that a fi nd i ng of i nv olunt ary w i t hd raw al i s not appealabl e t o the B oard of T ax A pp eal s. II. D u e P rocess

### See I n reD. O. , 798 So. 2d 417, 423 ( Mis s. 2001) ( st ating “ [t ] hat al though an is sue 26 

### i s c on s t i t uti on a li n nat

ur e , i t i s n ot a bs olve d f r om theg e ne r a lr

ul e that o bj e c t i on s mus t be ra is ed at t he tri alle vel ”)
. SeeMis s. R. App. P. 44(a) (st ating “[ i] f theval idi ty of any s tatut e . . . is ra is ed i n the 27 

### Supre meCourt

or the Cour

t of Appea ls , and thest at e, muni cipal corpor ation, or gover nme nta l body whi ch e nac te d or promul gat ed i t i s not a party to t

he proce eding, the party r ai sing suchquestion s hal l s er ve a copy of it s brie f, whic h sha llcl early se t out the ques ti on ra is ed, on theAtt orne y Gene ra l, thec it y att orne y, or othe r chi ef

l ega l of fi ce r of the gover nme nta l body involve d”) and I n reD. O. , 798 So. 2d at

423. SeeMis s. Code Ann. § 27-77- 1(o) (Re v. 2010)
. 28 

### 9 ¶1 2
. A t i ts he art, V irk ’s a p p e a l is a d u e -p ro c e ss c laim . H e a rgu es th at a d en ial o f a
c o n tin u a n c e req u e st c a n am o u n t t o a d e n ial o f d u e p ro c e ss an d th a t, th e re fo re , inv o lu n tar ily
w i t hdr aw n appea l s s houl d be s ubj ectt o r evi ew . T hi s ar gum enti s pr ocedur al l y barr ed, as V irk fa iled to ra ise it b e fo re the ch a n c e ry co u rt an d faile d to se rv e a c o p y o f h is a p p e llate 26 b rie f o n th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l. P ro c e d u ra l b a r n o tw ith sta n d in g , this a rg u m e n t als o is 27
w ith o u t m e rit. ¶ 1 3
. “ G e n e ra lly , d u e p ro c e s s r e q u ir e s n o tic e a n d a m e a n in g f u l o p p o rt u n ity to b e h e a rd .” A kins v. Mis s . D ep’ t

of R ev . , 70 So. 3d 204, 208 ( M i s s . 2011) ( ci t i ng V in c e n t v. G riffin , 872 So. 2d 676, 678 ( M i s s . 2004) )
. I ti s undi s put ed t hatV i r k r ece i ved both. V i r k r ece i ved not i ce
w hen M D O R not i f

i ed hi s r epr es ent at i ve of hi s hear i ng da t e by l et t erda t ed A ugus t18, 2011. 28 H e also ha d an op p o rtu n ity t o be he ard at h is O ctob er 13 , 20 1 1 , he aring b u t ch o se n o t to at t end. ¶14. V i r k does not di s put e t hat he r ece i ved not i ce and a hear i ng or t hat he f ai l ed t o at t end h is h ea ri n g . R athe r, he co n tend s “tha t the M D O R arbitr aril y an d cap ri ciou sly de n ied h is req u est for a co n ti n u an ce ” an d th at suc h a de n ial co n sti tutes a du e-p roc ess v iolati o n . V irk

### See Stat e v . Crank , 666 S. W.2d 91 ( Tex. 1984) (holding admin istrativeboard’s 29 

### deni alof a

petitione r’ s c ontinuanc e r eque st was not anab use of dis cr etion whe n the petitio ner already h ad receiv ed tw o co ntinuan ces, hadbeen n otifiedof th e hearin g a mo nth in a dvanc e, and ha d wait ed to fi rehis attor ney unti l themor

ning of theheari ng), and Ungar v. Sa rafite , 376 U. S. 575, 588-91, 84 S. Ct. 841, 11 L. Ed. 2d 921 (1964) (holding thedeni al of a petitione r’ s c ontinuanc e r eque st did not deny the pe ti ti on er due proc es s whe n the petitio ner w as giv en five day s’ notice of the hearin g, the issues w ere limited an d clear-cut, and the pe ti ti oner

did not re ques t t he c ontinuanc e untiltheday of theheari ng). King , 803 A. 2d at

967. 30

### Id. 31 

### Id. at 967-68. 32

### Id. at 96 9 ( qu oti ng Sta te B d. of Med. Educ. & Lic ens ure v. Wil li ams , 172 Pa
. 33 

### Super. 4 48 , 94 A.2 d 6 1, 6 2 (1 95 3) (internal quo tation s omitted ). 10 cit es th ree ca ses fro m o ther jurisdicti o n s to su p p o rth is argu m e n t th a t th e “d en ial o f a
r eques t ed cont i nuance c an cons t i tut e an ef f ect i ve deni al of

due pr oces s , even i n t he cont ext
o f ad m inistrati v e h ea ri n g s. ” T w o o f th e ca ses d o no t su p p o rtV irk ’s argu m en t, an d the th ir d 29
c a s e , K in gv. D istric t o

f Co lu m b ia W

a ter a n d S e w e r A u th o rity , 8 0 3 A
. 2 d 9 6 6 (D
. C
. 2 0 0 2 ), i s di s t i ngui s habl e. ¶15. I n King , an el der l y w om an i n poor heal t h m i ssed her heari ng bef or e t he D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a W at erand Sew erA ut hor i t y due t o i ncl ementw eather
. She cl ai m ed t o have 30 cal l ed the W at erand Sew erA ut hor i t y t he morni ng of herhear i ng and s enta l et t ert he next day, r eques t i ng a cont i nuance . T he W at erand Sew erA ut hor i t y deni ed hercont i nuance 31
r eques tand s he appe al ed. T he D i s t r i ctof C ol um bi a C our tof

A ppeal s r ever s ed, hol di ng t hat 32

“ a r e q u e s t f

o r a c o n tin u a n c e w h e n a tte n d a n c e a t a h e a ri n g w o u ld in v o lv e s e ri o u s ri s k to . .

. heal t h s houl d notbe deni ed. ” U nl i ke the pet i t i oneri n King , V i r k neverr eques t ed a 33 cont i nuance i n w r i t i ng. A ddi t i onal l y, i n King , the p eti ti o n er’s re aso n s fo r h er req u est w ere

### Mis s. Admin. Code 35- I
- 1. 01 ( 2013) 

### . 34 

### Miss. C od e Ann. § 27 -77 -5(2 ) (Rev . 20 10 ). 35 

### 11 s ubs t ant i at ed and unc ont es t ed, w her eas no evi dence w as pre s ent ed t o j us t i f y V i r k’ s al l eged
re q u e st. ¶16. V i r k al s o ar gues t hat H ol t di d not have author i t y t o deny hi s cont i nuance r eques tand t hathi s r eques ts houl d have be en cons i der ed by the C hai r m an of t he B oar d of

R evi ew ort he C om m i s s i oner , bas ed on Sect i on 3 5-I -1. 01 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi A dm i ni s t r at i ve C ode. T he pert i nen tpartof Secti on 35 -I -1. 01 st at es:
a. A r eques tf

ora cont i nuance of

t he hea r i ng w i l l be r ou t i nely gra nt ed i f t he re q u e st is re c e iv e d w ith in te n (1 0 ) d a y s a fte r th e n o tice o f th e h e a rin g is m ai l ed. I f

t he r eques tf

orcont i nuance i s re cei ved beyond t en ( 10) days f r om th e da te th e n o ti ce of he aring i s m ail ed , th en th e d eterm ination w h e th e r to cont i nue the hea r i ng w i l l be made by t he C hai r m an of t he R evi ew B oar d. b
. T h e D ep artm en t o f R ev en u e w il l n o t b e re sp o n sible for d elay in the d eli v ery o f m a il. 34 H ow ever , V i r k’ s ar gum entf ai l s beca us e he ne verr eques t ed a c ont i nuance . H i s al l eged
conver s at i on w i t h H ol tdoes notcons t i tut e a “ cont i nuance r eques t , ” and V i r k m ade no other ef f or tt o have hi s hear i ng dat e pos tponed. I n f act , he m ade no ef

f or tt o r eques ta cont i nuance , as hi s conver s at i on w i t h H ol tw as i ni t i at ed by her , nothi m . T he ch ai r m an ca nnotbe
e x p e c t e d t o c o n s i d e rr e q u e s t s t h a ta r e n o tp r e s e n t e d t o t h e Bo a r d o f Re v i e w. ¶17
. A dd i t i on al l y, even i f V i rk coul d no tat t end hi s heari ng , Secti on 27-77-5(2) al l ow s a t axpaye rt o m ake a r eques t“t o s ubm i thi s pos i t i on i n w r i t i ng orby el ectroni c tr ans m i s s i on i n l i eu of

at t endanc e. ” V i r k fai l ed t o t ake advant age of t hi s al t ernat i ve. I n l i ghtof t he 35 for ego i ng , w e fi nd no viol at i on of V i rk’ s due-process r i gh t s.

### See I n reD. O. , 798 So. 2d at

423. 36 

### SeeMis s. R. App. P. 44( a) and I n reD. O. , 798 So. 2d at

423. 37

### Khurana v

. Mi ss. De p’t of Re venue , 85 So. 3d 851, 855 ( Mis s. 2012). 38 

### Khurana , 85 So. 3d at

855 (Mi ss . 2012)
. 39 

### 12 I I I . C hancery court ’ s j uri s di ct i on ¶1 8
. F in a lly , V irk a rg u e s th a t S e c tio n 2 7 -7 7 -5 d iv ests th e ch an ce ry co u rt o f e q u ity ju risd ictio n in v io latio n o f th e M iss iss ip p i C o n stitu tio n . L ik e V irk ’s d u e -p ro c e ss a rg u m e n t, t hi s ar gum enti s pr ocedur al l y barr ed, as V i r k f ai l ed t o r ai s e i tbef

or e the cha ncery cour t and 36 f ai l ed t o s erve a c opy of hi s appel l at e b ri ef

on t he A t t or ney G ener al
. Pr ocedur al bar 37
no t w i t hst and i ng , t his argum ent al so fai l s on the m eri t s. ¶ 1 9
. V irk is c o rre c t th a t “ c h a n c e ry c o u rts d o h a v e su b jec t m a tter ju risd ictio n o v e r a p p e a ls f r om t ax as s es s m ent s ” pur s uantt o the M i s s i s s i ppi Const i tut i on a nd thatj ur i s di ct i on cannot be di ves t ed by s t atut e. B uta c hance r y c our t ’ s a ppel l at e j ur i s di ct i on i s governed by s t atut e, 38 and “a ch ancery cour thas no author i t y t o cr eat e a r i ghtof appea l f r om an admi ni s t r at i ve
a g e n c y in th e a b se n c e o f c lea r sta tu to ry a u th o rity .” T h is iss u e is w ith o u t m e rit. 39 CO NC L US I ON ¶20. K arm

j i tV i r k c hal l enged t w o t ax as s es s m ent s i s s ued by the M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m ent of R evenue . H i s appea l w as w i t hdr aw n i nvol unt ar i l y and the as s ess m ents b ecame f i nal b e c a u se o f h is fa ilu re to a p p e a r a t th e h e a rin g b e fo re th e B o a rd o f R e v iew . V irk ’s a p p e a ls t o the B oar d of

Tax A ppeal s a nd the H i nds Count y Chancery Courtw er e di s m i s s ed. Fi ndi ng
no e r r or , w e af

f i r m the deci s i ons of

the B oar d of

R evi ew , t he B oar d of

T ax A ppeal s , and the H in d s C o u n ty C h a n c e ry C o u rt.

### 13

¶ 2 1
. AF F I RM ED . W A LL ER , C . J. , D I C K I N SO N A N D R A N D O LP H , P. JJ . , K I TC H EN S, CHANDL ER , P I ER CE , KI NG AND COL EM AN, J J . , CONCUR.