I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - S A- 0 2 4 1 8 - S CT F R ED D IE L . D A VISA N D JE A N E T T E D A VIS

v. AT TOR NE Y GENERA L OF T HE S T AT E O F M I S S I S S I P P I AN D E XE CU T I V E D I RE CTOR OF T HE DEP AR T M EN T OF FI NA NC E A ND AD M I NI S T RA T ION
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 02/ 2004 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. S T UAR T RO BI NS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN TS: A. N. CA STI LLA J OHN F LOYD FL ET CHER CORY RAND LE LANCAS TE R AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L E E S : AS HL E Y M AY RO M A I N E LE V EA N RI CH A RD S GA RY W OO D STRI NG ER NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: 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 - 05/ 11/ 2006 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 SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. O n J une 1, 1999, t he M i s s i s s i p p i St a t e Ta x Commi s s i o n ( “ Tax Com m i s s i on”) as s es s ed Fr eddi e L. D avi s and J eane t t e D avi s ( “A ppel l ant s ”) w i t h addi t i onal i ncome t ax, penal t i es and i nter estfor t he tax y ears 19 90 t hroug h 1 99 5. O n A pri l 4, 20 00 , i n acco rd w i t h A pp el l ants ’

r eques t u n d er M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 7- 71( 1) , t he B oar d of R evi ew cons i der ed and ent er ed an O r der s ubs t ant i al l y uphol di ng t he i ni t i al as s es s m ent
. O n J ul y 12, 2000, pur s uant

### 2

t o A ppel l ant s ’ r eques t under Sect i on 27- 7- 71( 2) , t he T ax C om m i s s i on cons idere d and

s ubs t ant i al l yuphel d t he i ni t i al as s es s m ent by O r der of A ugus t 2, 2000. O n M ar ch 30, 2001, A ppel l ant s r ece i ved t he O r derand had thi r t y ( 30) day s t o payt he as s es s m entorfi l e a pe t i t i on
a n d b o n d in th e c h a n c e ry c o u rt. O n M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , A p p e llan ts f u llyp a id th e a ss e ss m e n t to t he Tax C om m i s s i on w i t h an ac company i ng let ter st at i ng t heyw er e notappea l i ng i t s fi nal O r der
. O vert w o y ear s l at er , on A ugus t 22, 2003, A ppel l ant s fi l ed a r efund cl ai m w i t h t he D epar t m ent of Fi nance and A dm i ni s t r at i on ( “D FA ”) underSect i on 27- 73- 1. O n N ovember 13, 2003, an O pi ni on of t he A t t or neyG ener al deni ed t he r efund r eques t
. O n D ece m ber3, 2 0 0 3 , t h e DF A d e n i e d t h e r e f u n d r e q u e s t b a s e d o n t h e Op i n i o n o f t h e At t o r n e yGe n e r a l
. On Febr uar y19, 2004, A ppel l ant s fi l ed a C om pl ai nt for A ppeal and R evi ew and/ orR efund of E r r o n e o u s l y P a i d T a x e s i n t h e C h a n c e r y C o u r to f t h e F i r s tJ u d i c i a l D i s t r i c to f H i n d s C o u n t y, M i ssissi p p i. T he cha ncerycour tt her eaf t ergr ant ed s um m ar yj udgm enti n favorof t he A t t or neyG ener al of t he S t at e of M i s s i s s i ppi and t he Execut i ve D i r ect orof t he D epar t m ent of Fi nance and A dm i ni s t r at i on ( “A ppel l ee s”), w h o had fi l ed a M ot i on t o D i s m i s s t he C om pl ai n t f

orA ppeal and R evi ew and/ orR efund of E r r oneous l yPai d T axes fi l ed by A p p ell an ts. T h e d is p o s itio n w as in the f o rm o f a n O rde r G ran ti n g M o ti o n F o r S u m m ary J udgm enton O ct ober21, 2 0 0 4
. T her eaf t er , A ppel l ant s fi l ed not i ce of appea l s eeki ng
re v e rsa l o f

th e c h a n c e ryc o u rt’s ju d g m e n t.

### Th e a dd it ional i ncom e t ax, penal ti es and inter es t c hiefly re la te d to M r. Davis’ s 1 

### em p lo y m en t at C o o kF un eral H o m e inJack so n , M ississip p i. The Boar d of Re vi e w found a ddi t i ona l i nc om e t ax, pe na l t i e s and i nt e r est in the 2 

### am ount of $166, 396. 00. The Tax Comm i s s i on found a dd itio n al i nc om e t ax, pe na l t i e s and i nt e r e s t i n the 3 

### am ount of $173, 751. 00. Ap pell ants as se rt

financia l i nabili ty as the re as on fo r failure. Ho wever, Ap pell ee s 4 

### c o n t e n dth at

th e o n l y ar g ume n t

r a i s e db y

Ap p e l l an t s p r i o r

t o th i s a

p p e a lw a s at i me co n strain t. 3 FACTS ¶ 2
. On J u n e 1 , 1 9 9 9 , t h e T a x C o m m i s s i o n a s s e s s e d Ap p e l l a n t s wi t h a d d i t i o n a l i n c o me t a x , p e n a l t i e s a n d i n t e r e s tt o t a l i n g $ 1 6 0 , 7 2 2
. 0 0 f o rt h e t a x y e a r s 1 9 9 0 t h r o u g h 1 9 9 5
. On 1 A p ri l 4, 2 0 0 0 , p u rsua n t to th e A p p ell an ts req u est u n d er M iss. C o d e A n n . S ec ti o n 2 7 -7-7 1 (1), t he B oar d of R evi ew hel d a hea r i ng and i s s ued an O r ders ubs t ant i al l yuphol di ng t he i ni t i al

as s es s m ent
. Fr om t hat O r der , and pur s uantt o t he A ppel l ant s r eques tunderSect i on 27- 7-

2 71( 2) , t he T a x Commi s s i o n h e l d a h e a r i n g o n J u l y1 2 , 2 0 0 0
. On Aug u s t2 , 2 0 0 0 , t h e Tax C o m m i s s i o n i s s u e d a n O r d e r s u b s t a n t i a l l y u p h o l d i n g t h e i n i t i a l a s s e s s m e n t
. A d d i t i o n a l l y, 3
t he Tax C om m i s s i on or der ed t he ass es s m ent be pai d, or a pet i t i on and bond be fi l ed i n t he chanc er ycour t , w i t hi n t hi r t y( 30) day s of r ece i pt of t he O r der by t he A ppel l ant s . O n M ar ch 30, 2001, t he A ppel l ant s r ece i ved t he O r der of t he T ax C om m i s s i on, w i t hout expl anat i on by ei t herpar t yfort he del ay . A ppel l ant s fai l ed t o s ecur e t he appe al bond r equi r ed byM i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 7- 73. O n M ay11, 2001, t he A ppel l ant s s ubm i t t ed ful l pay m en tfort he 4

as s es s m ent
. A l ong w i t h t hei rpaym ent , A ppel l ant s pr es ent ed a l et t ert o t he Tax C om m i s s i on
s ta tin g th a t th e yw e re n o t a p p e a lin g its f in a l O rd e r.

### “ § 27- 73- 1 m ay have be e n an al te rnat i v eand s upple me ntal me t hod of c ont e s t i ng the 5 

### assessm en ts wh en theywereinitiall y made unde r

§ 27- 7- 49, but o n ce th e D av is’ electedto c ha l l e nge the a s s e s s m e nt

unde r the a dm i ni s tr at i ve pr oc e s s s e t out i n § 27- 7- 71 and § 27- 7- 7 3 , th e Davis ’ are bo un d b y th e f in al resu lts o f

th e adm in istrativ e p ro cess.” (E m p h asis added). Ci t i ng Hood v

. De pt . of Wi l dl i f eCons e rv at

ion , 57 1 So. 2d 26 3 (Miss . 199 0); C ity 6 

### of Jacks on v

. Hol l iday , 24 6 M is s. 41 2, 14 9 S o. 2d52 5 (Miss . 196 3). 4 ¶3. O vert w o y ear s l at er , on A ugus t22, 2003, t he A ppel l ant s fi l ed a r efund c l ai m w i t h t he D FA pur s uantt o t he pr ocedur es out l i ned i n M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 73- 1. T hatr efund cl ai m w as rej ect ed byt he D FA on A ugus t22, 2003, butt hei rr ecomm endat i on w as not pas s ed on t o t he A t t or ney G ener al for r evi ew , as r equi r ed bySect i on 27- 73- 1. O n Sept ember 13, 2003, t he A ppel l ant s r eques t ed compl i ance w i t h Sect i on 2 7 -73 -1 byt he D FA
. Soon t her eaf t er , t he D FA r ecomm endat i on w as for w ar ded t o t he A t t or ney G ener al
. O n N ovember 13, 2003, an O pi ni on of t he A t t or neyG ener al w as i s s ued r ecomm endi ng deni al of t he r efund

r e q u e s t
. Th e At t o r n e yGen e r a l f o u n d t h a ta c l a i m f

o rr e f u n d u n d e rSe c t i o n 2 7
- 7 3
- 1 was bar r ed once t he admi ni s t r at i ve appe al s pr ocesse s of Sect i on 27- 7- 71 and Sect i on 27- 7- 73

w e r e u t i l i z e d b y a t a x p a ye r . U n d e rS e c t i o n 2 7
- 7
- 7 3 , t h e A p p e l l a n t s h a d t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a ys 5 fr om r ece i ptof t he Tax C om m i s s i on O r dert o appea l t o t he cha ncerycour t
. B ecaus e t he A ppel l ant s di d notper fec ts uch an a ppeal , t he A t t or neyG ener al det erm ined that “l et [t i ng] t he D avi s ’ now br i ng a r efund a ct i on aft ercompl et i ng t he hea r i ng pr oces s o f § 27-7- 71

w oul d depr i ve § 27- 7- 73 of anyoper at i ve for ce. ” T her efor e, t he A t t or neyG ener al found t hat

r e s j ud i c a t a a pp l i e d t o t he a dmi ni s t r a t i ve de t erm i nati on . O n Dec e mber3, 20 03 , t he D FA 6

a g a in d e n ied A p p e llan ts re f u n d re q u e st b a se d o n th e O p in io n o f th e A tto rn e yG e n e ra l.

### As re qu ir ed by Sect ion 2 7-73 -1(1). 7



### “ The Comm i s s i on’ s fi ndi ngs be i ng fi na l , ar e r e s judi c at at o any que s t i ons r a i s e d by 8 

### P lain tif f s a s to th e in co m e tax assessm en t issu edag ain st P lain tif f s .... P lain tif

f s are also barr e d unde r the doc tr i ne of c ol l at e r a l e s t oppe l fr om r a i s i ng the i s s ue s r a i s e d i n thi s a c t i on, be i ng the s am e i s s ue s r a i s e d be for e the Comm i s s i on and i n r e gar d t o whi c h the Comm i s s i on m ad e f in d in g s w h ichw ere n o t tim ely ap p ealedan db ecam e f

in al.” S ectio n2 7 -7 3 -5 p ro v id es a th ree (3 ) y e ar s t atute o f lim itatio n s an d , acco rd in g to 9 

### Appe l l e e s , “ i t

i s c l e ar that the r e t urns i n i s s ue we r e fi l e d m or e than thr e e ( 3) ye ar s be for e the fi l i ng of thi s a c t i on, and i f not the r e t urns , the a s s e s s m e nt s we r e i s s ue d m or e than thr e e ( 3) years b ef o re th e p resen t actio n .” 5 ¶4. O n F eb rua ry 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , an d w it h in six m o nt hs of t he A t t or ney G en era l’ s det er m i nat i on, t he A ppel l ant s fi l ed a C om pl ai nt for A ppeal and R evi ew and/ orR efund of 7 E r r o n e o u s l y P a i d T a x e s i n t h e C h a n c e r y C o u r to f t h e F i r s tJ u d i c i a l D i s t r i c to f H i n d s C o u n t y, M i s s i s s i ppi
. O n M ar ch 22, 2004 , the A ppel l ees fi l ed a M ot i on t o D i s m i s s ar gui ng t hat

“ [ t]h e re is no sta tu to rya u th o rityf o r th is a c tio n b yP lain tiff s w h e re th e tax p a y e rs d id n o t f ile an appe al under § 27- 7- 73 but pai d t he i ncome t ax as aff i r m ed byt he C om m i s s i on t hen s ued t he D efe ndant s . . . for a m o n ey judgm enti n t he amount of t he i ncome t ax pai d. ” I n ot her

w o rds, a pa id inc o m e tax asse ssm en t w h ere the tax p ay er d o es n o t app ea l th e C o m m issi o n ’s det er m i nat i on t hat t he t axes ar e due does not fi t w i t hi n Sect i on 27- 73- 1. B eca us e t he A ppel l ant ’ s C om pl ai ntw as notfi l ed w it h i n t hi r t y( 30) day s w i t h t he r equi r ed bond, A ppel l ees as s er t ed t he C om pl ai ntw as bar r ed as unt i m el y . A ssu m i ng ar guendo t hat 8 A ppel l ant s coul d br i ng t hei r act i on underSect i on 27- 73- 1, A ppel l ees cont end t hats uch an act i on w oul d be unt i m el yand barr ed under t he appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i n M i s s . C ode A n n . S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -5
. O n A p ril 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , A p p e llan ts f iled th e ir re sp o n se to th e M o tio n to 9 D i s m i s s as s er t i ng t hatt he pl ai n l anguage of Sect i on 27- 73- 1 es t abl i s hes t hatt he s ect i on

### S ectio n2 7 -7 3 -1 (1 ). S e eal s o St at ee x rel . Ric ev . Mi ss i ss i ppi I ns t it ut eof 10 

### Aerona utics , 19 8 M is s. 28 8, 22 So . 2d 3 72 (194 5) (r egar ding a r efun d o f incom e t axes p ursu an t to § 2 7 -7 3 -1 ); Bar ne t t v . Unit e d St at es Cas ual t yCo. , 197 Mi s s . 873, 21 So. 2d 5 (194 5). Sect ion 2 7-73 -1(2).

11 

### “I f app lying § 27 -73-5 i n this re gard, Plai ntiffs wo uld h ave been re qu ir ed to file a 12 

### c l a i m of r e fund unde r

§ 27- 73- 1 be for e the Comm i s s i on a s s e s s e d the m for the 1990- 1995 tax ab le years.” M o reo v er, Ap p ellan ts arg u ed th at un d er S ectio n2 7 -7 3 -1 , a P lain tif f m ay f ile in chancer

y court his peti ti on fo r appeal and r evie w within s ix (6) m on ths of a disa pp roved requ est f o r ref un d f ro m th e A tto rn ey G en eral. A s th e A tto rn ey G en eral d isap p ro v edth eir re fu nd re qu es t on No vem ber 13 , 20 03 , and the Ap pell ants file d their Co m plai nt onFebruary 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , th ey

w ere w ell w ith inth at six m o n threqu irem en t. Ci t i ng Sm it

h v . Univ e r s it yof Mi ss i ss i ppi , 79 7 So
. 2d 95 6, 96 3 ( Mi s s . 20 01 ); 13 

### Z im m erm a n v. T

h ree R ivers P

la n n ing a n d

D evelo p m en t D ist. , 7 4 7 S o . 2 d8 5 3 , 8 6 1 (M iss. C t. Ap p . 1 9 9 9 ). 6 a p p lies to p a y m e n t “th ro u g h e rro r o r o th e rw ise
.. . [ o f ] an y tax in e x c e ss o f

th e su m p ro p e rly d u e ... [ if ] s u c h e rr o n e o u s p a y m e n t o r o v e rp a y m e n t h a s b e e n p a id in to th e p ro p e r t re a s u ry,” 10 and i s an “ addi t i onaland s uppl em ent alm ethod ” f o r ref u n d in g o v e rp a id , o r e r r o n e o u sly 11 pai d, t axes . M or eover , as t he C om m i s s i on’ s t ax ass es s m ent w as not r ender ed unt i l J une 1, 1999, A ppel l ant s ar gued i tw oul d be pat ent l y unfai r t o i m pos e S ect i on 27- 73- 5 beca us e t hat

s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons w oul d have e xpi r ed pr i ort o t he as s es s m enti t s el f. 12 ¶5
. O n O ctob er 1 9 , 2 0 0 4 , the ch an ce ll o r issue d an O rde r G ran ti n g M o ti o n F o r S u m m ary J udgm ent
. T he chanc el l or det er m i ned t hat t he A ppel l ant s w er e notent i t l ed t o j udi ci al r evi ew beca us e t heyhad fa i l ed t o s eek r evi ew w i t hi n t hi r t y( 30) day s of t he Tax C om m i s s i o n ’s O rde r, as re q u ir ed b yS ec ti o n 2 7 -7-7 3
. T h at f ail u re to a p p ea l r en d ere d the T ax C o m m issi o n ’s O rd e r f in a l an d u n re v iew a b le u n d e r th e d o c tr in e s o f re s ju d ica ta a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 13 B eca us e t he t axes w er e aff i r m ed by t he fi nal O r der of t he Tax C om m i s s i on, t he cha ncel l or

### 7

found he w as “w i t houtaut hor i t yt o r evi ew t he fi ndi ngs of [the Tax C om m i s s i on] ort o fi nd t he as s es s m entt o be err oneous . ” Ther efor e, t he cha ncel l orconcl uded t her e w er e no genui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac t , and hi s fi n al ju dgm entw as fi l ed on N ovember 3, 2004. Fr om t hat ju d g m e n t, A p p e lla n ts f ile d th e ir n o tic e o f

a p p e a l. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶ 6
. T h is C o u rt re v ie w s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n ts d e n o v o . See H ar dy v. B r ock , 826 So. 2d 71, 74 ( M i s s . 2002)
. T he fac t s ar e t o be vi ew ed i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he non- m ovi ng p a rt y . Id
. “I f [t he appel l at e cour t ’ s ] exami nat i on i ndi cat es t hat t her e i s no genui ne i s s ue of

m at er i al fac t , t he m o v ing par t yi s ent i t l ed t o j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Id
. ( quot i ng R ob in son v. S in ging R i ver Hosp. S ys. , 7 3 2 S o. 2d 204, 207 ( M i s s . 1999) )
. T he exi s t ence
o f a n yg e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te ri a l f

a c t, h o w e v e r, p re c lu d e s s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. Id
. In

r eac hi ng t hatconcl us i on, t he non- m ovi ng par t ym aynots i m pl yr es tupon al lega ti o n s or deni al s i n t he pl eadi ngs but m us t s et for t h s peci fi c fac t s es t abl i s hi ng t he exi s t ence of genui ne is s u e s . Id
. A N A L Y S IS ¶7. O n ap peal, t he A pp el l ants rai se fou r i ssues: ( 1) W het herA ppel l ant s fai l ed t o exhaus tal l admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es r equi r ed byM i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 7- 71, w hi ch govern s a d mi n i s t r at i ve appe al s for t axp ay ers . ( 2) W het hert he cha ncel l orer r ed i n concl udi ng t hat t he re fund pr ocedur es s et for t h i n M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 73- 1 w er e nota vi abl e al t er nat i ve t o t he m or e comm onl yut i l i zed j udi ci al appea l pr ocedur es cont ai ned i n M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 7- 73. ( 3) W het herM i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 7- 73 i s uncons t i t ut i onal and w het her t he cha ncel l orer r ed i n r el y i ng excl us i vel y on i t as t he l egal bas i s fora rul i ng

### 8

t hatA ppel l ant s w er e barr ed fr om s eeki ng a r efund of overpai d t axes pur s uant t o M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 73- 1. (4 )B e c a u se th e c irc u m sta n c e s s u rro u n d in g a lette r w ritten b yA p p e llan ts r emai ns unr es ol ved and the C our t fai l ed t o cons i dert he fi nanci al condi t i on of A ppel l ant s , w het hergenui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac texi s tw hi ch s houl d have p re c lu d e d th e c h a n c e llo r’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T his C ou rtw i l l analy ze each i ssue i n tur n an d, i f any gen uin e issue o f m at eri al fact exis t s,
w il l r ev erse an d rem an d the f inal jud g m en t of

the c h an ce ll o r. I . W het her A ppel l a nt s f a i l e d t o e xha us t a l l a dmi ni s t r a t i ve re m edi es requi red by M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 7- 71. ¶8. O urhol di ng i n D avis v. B arr , 250 M i s s . 54, 157 So. 2 d 5 0 5, 508 ( 1963) , r equi r es i ndi vi dual s t o “exha us tt hei radmi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es befor e r es or t i ng t o cour t
. ” W i t h r es pect to ta x is s u e s , fai l ur e on t he par tof one s eeki ng an aba t ement of hi s t ax as s es s m entt o i nvoke a n avail able adm i nis t rat i ve rem edy , or, i f i nv ok ed, t o p ursue t he p ossib le adm i nis t rat i ve ap peals t o ex hau st i on , preven t s ent i rel y , or i n som e w ayl i m i t s, hi s obt ai ni ng anyr el i ef f r om the co u rt s w i t h r es pectt o t he amount ort he leg a lityo f

th e c h a llen g e d a ss e ss m e n t. Id
. ( quot i ng 51 A m . J ur . , Se cti o n 769, p. 698)
. I n D a v is , the A p p e llan ts n o t o n lyf a iled to
a p p e a l to th e S tate T a x C o m m iss io n , b u t als o n e g lec ted to p o st th e re q u ire d b o n d w ith th e ir p e titio n in c h a n c e ry c o u rt
. Id
. at509 ( t he appl i cabl e s t atut e w as S ec ti o n 9220- 31, C ode 1942, t he pre dece s s or t o Sect i on 27- 7- 73)
. T hi s C our thel d t hat“t he Tax C om m i s s i on had

e x c lu siv e ju risd ictio n o f th e in c o m e tax a ss e ss m e n t d u e b ya p p e llan ts, a n d b e f o re a p p e llan ts coul d i nvoke t he ai d of an equi t y cour t , i tw as nece s s ar yfort hem t o have f i r s tpr ocee ded by t he met hod and t hr ough t he cha nnel pr ovi ded byl aw befor e the T ax C om m i s s i on. ” Id
. at 510.

### Not e that both Se c t i on 27- 7- 71 and Se c t i on 27- 7- 73 we r e r e pe a l e d by Laws 2005, 14 

### Ch. 499, Se c t i on 36. That r e pe a l , howe ve r , be c am e e ffe c t i ve on Jul y 1, 2005 and wa s not to b e ap p liedretro activ ely
. See L aw s 2 0 0 5 , C h . 4 9 9 , S ectio n3 7 ; M iss. C en t. R . C o . v. C ity o f H a ttiesb u rg , 163 Mi s s . 311, 141 So. 897 ( 1932) ( “ St at ut e s will be gi ve n apr os pe c t i ve o p eratio nun less a co n trary in ten tio nis sh o w n .”). T h is n eg ates th e arg um en t o f Ap p ellan ts that the r epea l, al on g w it

h S enat e Bil l 2 7 4 2 , 2 0 05 Regu lar Ses si on , Sec ti on4(1) (which e ffe c t i ve l y

c ons ol i dat e s the a l t e rnat i ve pr oc e dur e s of Se c t i ons 27- 7- 71, - 73 and Se c t i on 27- 7 3 -1 in to o n e), b ears any

sig n if ican ce inth e p resen t actio n .

9 ¶ 9
. A p p e llan ts c o n ten d th e c h a n c e llo r e rre d in f in d in g th e y h a d f

a iled to f u lly e x h a u st a ll admi ni s t r at ive rem edi es . A ppel l ant s as s er tt hatt heypas s ed t hr ough al l t he admi ni s t r at i ve
s t eps r equi r ed under Sect i on 27- 7- 71. Fi r s t , t hey i ni t i at ed an a ppeal t o t he Tax C om m i s s i on 14 R evi ew B oar d w i t hi n t hi r t y( 30) day s of t he cont es t ed ac t i on, as r equi r ed bySect i on 27- 7- 7 1 (1 ). U n sa tisf

ied w ith th e O rd e r o f th e R e v iew B o a rd , th e y in iti a ted a n a p p e a l to th e f u ll T ax C om m i s s i on w i t hi n t hi r t y( 30) day s of t he R evi ew B oar d O r der , as r equi r ed bySect i on 2 7 -7 -7 1 (2 ). T h e ya ss e rt th a t f o llo w in g th e f

u ll T a x C o m m iss io n O rd e r, all f u rth e r a p p e a ls ( i
. e. t he ut i l i zat i on of S ect i on 27- 7- 73) ar e j udi ci al i n natur e. A s s uch, t heyar gue t hatt hey exhaus t ed al l admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es t hr ough t hei r appea l s i ni t i at ed underSect i on 27- 7- 71. ¶10
. T he p l ai n langua ge o f S ect i on 27 -7- 71 st at es: [ a ]n ytax d e f

icie n c y , inc lu d in g a n yp e n a ltya n d in ter e st, determ in e d b yth e sta te t ax comm i s s i on s hal l be pai d w i t hi n t hi r t yday s fr om t he d ate of not i fi cat i on of t he t a x p a y e r , a n d i f s a i d s u m i s n o t p a i d wi t h i n s a i d t h i r t y - d a y p e r i o d, t he s t at e t ax comm i s s i on s hal l pr oceed to col l ects ame undert he pr ovi s i ons of S e c tio n s 2 7 -7 -5 5 to 2 7 -7 -6 7 ; pr ovi ded w i t hi n s ai d t hi r t y- day p er i od t he t axpaye rm ay appeal

f r om t he dec is i on of

t he s t at e t ax com m is s i on as her ei naf t ers et out[in S ec ti o n 2 7 -7-7 3 ]. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 7- 71 ( emphasi s added)
. U pon exhaus t i ng t he re m edi es pr ovi ded under S e c t i o n 2 7
- 7
- 7 1 , a n a p p e a l t o t h e c h a n c e r y c o u r tm u s tb e p e r f e c t e d w i t h i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a ys

### S ectio n2 7 -7 -7 3 p ro v id es: 15 

### The fi ndi ngs of th e st at e t ax c omm i s s i on sh a ll b e fin a l u n less the t axpayer sh all, wi t hi n t hi r t yday s f rom t he date of t

he re c e i pt of not i c eof s uc h f i ndi ngs , f ile a p etitio ninth e ch an cery co urt o f th e co un ty i n w h i c h th e taxp ayer is a r e s i de nt or i n whi c h the t axpaye r

i s d o m iciled.
. . . The pe t i t i on s ha l lbe a c c om pani e d wi th abond, t o be a ppr ove d by

the c l e rk of s a i d c ourt , i n as um doubl e the am ou n t in co n tr ove r s y , c ondi t i one d t o pay the judgm e nt

of the co urt. ... T h e ch an cery co urt sh all h av e j urisd ictio n to h ear an dd eterm in e said cau se o r issu e j o in edas ino th er cases. Miss . Cod e Ann . § 27 -7-73 (em ph as is added). I n a c c or d wi th the pr ovi s i ons of Se c t i on 27- 7- 71. 16 

### 10 of r ece i ptof the Tax C om m i s s i on fi ndi ngs , as out l i ned i n Sect i on 27- 7- 73. W hen t he 15 A ppel l a n t s a c c e p t e d t h e Ta x Commi s s i o n d e t e r mi n a t i o n a n d p a i d t h e t a x , t h e Tax C o m m iss io n f

in d in g s b e c a m e f

in a l u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -7 -7 3
. A p p e llan ts h a d th e o p tio n , w ith in t hi r t y( 30) day s of r ece i vi ng not i fi cat i on of t he T ax C om m i s s i on det er m i nat i on, of pay i ng t he t ax orappea l i ng underSect i on 2 7 -7-7 3
. U nderSect i on 27- 7- 73, t he Tax C om m i s s i on fi n d ing s are “fi nal ” unl es s t he t axpay erfi l es a pet i t i on i n chanc er ycour t“r eques t i ng a h e a rin g o f

th e c a se o n its m e rits” a c c o m p a n ied b ya b o n d “ in a su m d o u b le th e a m o u n t in cont r over s y . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 27- 7- 73. A s s um i ng ar g u en do t hatA ppel l ant s had

ex h au sted all ad m inist rati v e re m ed ies av ail ab le u n d er S ec ti o n 2 7 -7-7 1 , the c h an ce ll o r’s det er m i nat i on t hatt he r emedypr ovi ded bySect i on 27- 7- 73 w as notut i l i zed r emai ns 16

u n a ltere d
. B e c a u se A p p e llan ts af f irm a tiv e ly a c c e p ted th e T a x C o m m iss io n ru lin g a n d p a id t he t ax i ns t ead of

appea l i ng t o t he cha ncerycour t , t hi s C our tfi nds t he Tax C om m i s s i on
ru lin g b e c a m e th e f

in a l a d ju d ic a tio n .

### I n both c a s e s , the pr e de c e s s or s t at ut e t o Se c t i on 27- 73- 1 wa s be i ng i nvoke d. 17 

### See B a rn ett, 2 1 S o . 2 dat 7 (“S av e as to th e p articu lar t a x e s s p e c i a lly ex cep ted , a 18 

### t axpaye r m ay now pay t o a t ax c ol l e c t or , s t ate o r co u n ty , anytaxde m ande d, the r e by not de l ayi ng i t s pay

m e nt , and whe n, upon s ubs e que nt de ve l opm e nt or a s c e rt a i nm e nt , i t i s found th at as a m atter o f

u ltim ate liab ility

th e tax , o r th e f

u ll am o unt, so co llected is n o t rig h tf u lly r e t a i ne d, and he i s unabl e t o obt a i n r e l i e f thr ough the or di nary a dm i ni s tr at i ve c hanne l s , he m ay r e s ort t o the pos i t i ve pr ovi s i ons of [the pr e de c e s s or t o Se c t i on 27- 73- 1]. I f thi s wa s not 11 II . W h e th e r th e c h a n c e llo r e r r e d in c o n c lu d in g th e r e fu n d p r o c e d u r e s in M i s s . C ode A nn. Se c t i on 2 7- 73 - 1 w e r e not a v i abl e al t e r nat i ve to t he appeal procedures cont ai ned i n M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 7- 73. ¶11. A ppel l ant s cont end t he chanc el l or er r oneous l y concl u d ed t hat Sect i on 27- 73- 1 w as nota vi abl e al t er nat i ve t o Sect i on 27- 7- 73. Sect i on 27- 7- 73 per m i t s a t axpay ert o s eek ju d icia l re v iew o f

th e T a x C o m m iss io n ’s O rd e r w ith o u t f irst p a y in g th e c o n tes ted tax e s, if the ta xpay erappea l s w i t hi n t hi r t y( 30) day s of r ece i vi ng t he Tax C om m i s s i on O r derand pr ovi des an appe al bond equal t o t w o t i m es t he amount i n cont r over s y . C onver s el y , Sect i on 27- 73- 1 i s avai l abl e w hen t he t axpay erfi r s tpay s t he cont es t ed t ax es , avoi di ng pot ent i al penal t i es and i nt er es ti f i ncor r ect i n hi s as s er t i ons , and t hen s eeks admi ni s t r at i ve r evi ew for

a r efund of

t axes pai d t hr ough er r or or ot her w i s e i f (a nd onl y i f) s uch pay m ent w as i n er r or
o r an o v erp ay m en t. A p p ell an ts argu e tha t i f S ec ti o n 2 7 -7-7 3 is the on ly av ail ab le st atuto ry
m e a n s f o r o b tain in g ju d icia l re v iew o f th e d e c isi o n s o f

th e T a x C o m m iss io n , the n it

u nco nst i tuti on allyb a rs th e se a n d sim ilarlysitu a ted tax p a y e rs f ro m h a v in g a c c e ss to th e c o u rts
s ol el ybyvi r t ue of the fa ctt hatt hei rfi nanci al condi t i on di d notenab le th em t o obt ai n and p o s t th e a p p e a l b o n d re q u ir e d b yS e c tio n 2 7 -7 -7 3
. ¶12. A ppel l ant s r el yon State ex r el . R i ce , 2 2 So. 2d at373, and B a rn e tt , 21 So. 2d at6, to su p p o rt th e p ro p o sitio n th a t S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -1 a p p lies to th e re f u n d o f in c o m e tax e s. T h is 17 18

### the purpo se of the e nactm ent, it

had as w ell not been pass ed at al l. ”) (Em

ph as is added). Ho wever, th e O p in io no f

th e A tto rn ey

G en eral d istin g u ish ed th ese cases “b ecau se th e claim for r e fund ar os e fr om

the ove r pay m e nt of i nc om e t axe s , pa i d wi th afi l e d r e t urn, not fr om th e p ay m en t o f ad d itio n al tax es du e to au d it an dassessm en t.” Se c t i on 27- 73- 1( 2) s t at e s , “ [t ]hi s s e c t i on s ha l lnot be c ons tr

ue d a s r e pe aling or 19 

### m od ifying S ec ti on27 -73-7, or anyot he r law pr ovi di ng for

th e a ppl i c at i on for

or the c e rt i fi c at i on of ac l a i m

for r e fund, but

s ha l lbe t ake n and c ons tr ue d a s an addi t i ona l

and s upple me ntal

me t hod o f ref un d in g tax es erro n eo u sly pa i d. ” Mi s s . Code Ann. § 27- 73- 1( 2) (e m ph as is added). Se c t i on 27- 73- 5 pr ovi de s that s t at ut e of l i m i t at i ons s t at i ng, “ [a ]ll sui t s by any 20 

### t axpaye r for the r e c ove ry

of any . . . i nc om e . . . t ax, and a l l a ppl i c at i ons or pr oc e e di ngs for any re fu ndor cr edit

of such taxes s hallbe filed

o r m a d e w ith in th ree yea rs n ext afte r the re turn w as f iled , or f ro m th e d ate o f th e assessm en t o f th e tax w as m ad e, or from the dat e the tax w as p aid
... wh ic heve r i

s t he earlie r , and no r e c ove ry of t axe s unde r

any s uc h s ui t s ha l lbe h adan dn o ref

un do f t a x e s s h a l l b e m ad e un less su chsu it o r ap p licatio nw as f iledw ith in sa id peri odof

li m it at ion.” Mis s. Co de An n. § 2 7-73 -5 (e m ph as is added). 12 s ta tu te c re a te s a ri g h t a n d n o t m e re ly a r e m e d y . See Miss. C en t. R . C o. , 141 So. at897. A ppel l ant s as s er tt hatt heyhad t he opt i on of e it heravoi di ng pay i ng t he cont es t ed t ax by pos t i ng an appe al bond w i t hi n t hi r t y( 30) day s of t he T ax C om m i s s i on’ s det er m i nat i on under Sect i on 27- 7- 73 orpay i ng t he cont es t ed t ax and s eeki ng a re fund under Sect i on 27- 73- 1. 19 A s s uch, A ppel l ant s as s er tt hat beca us e S ect i on 27- 7- 73 w as not t he onl y s t atut or ym et hod avai l abl e, t he T ax C om m i s s i on’ s O r derw oul d onl ybecome fi nal and unr evi ew abl e upon t he expi r at i on of t he t hr ee- y ears t atut e of l i m i t at i ons appl i cabl e t o Sect i on 27- 73- 1. 20 ¶13. A ppel l ees count er t hat t he A ppel l ant s know i ngl ypai d t he i ncome t ax as s es s m ent aft er t he T ax C om m i s s i on O r der aff i r m ed t he as s es s m ent
. M or eover , Sect i on 27- 7- 73 pr ovi des t hatt h e T ax C om m i s s i on fi ndi ngs ar e fi nal unl es s t he t axpay er , w i t hi n t hi r t y( 30) day s of

r ece i ptof t he O r der , fi l es a pet i t i on and bond i n chanc er ycour tr eques t i ng a hea r i ng on t he

m e rits. B e c a u se A p p e llan ts w a ited n e a r ly th irty -f o u r (3 4 ) m o n th s b e f

o re f ili n g th e ir

### 13

C om pl ai nt , A ppel l ees cont end t hei rs ui ti s b arr ed undert he doctr i nes of r es j udi cat a and

c o llate ra l es to p p e l. ¶ 1 4
. “ T h e d o c trin e o f re s ju d ica ta r e f

lec ts th e re f

u sa l o f th e law to to ler a te a m u lti p licity of l i t i gat i on. ” L i ttle v. V& G W elding Su

ppl y, I nc. , 7 0 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 3 6 , 1 3 3 7 (M is s . 1 9 9 7 ). See al s o Hol li day , 1 4 9 S o . 2 d a t 5 2 7 (“ T h e c o m m o n la w d o c tr in e o f re s ju d ic a ta , in c lu d in g ...
c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l , i s d e s i g n e d t o p r e v e n tr e l i t i g a t i o n b y t h e s a me p a r t i e s o f t h e s a me c l a i ms
o r iss u e s.” ). T h e se ju d icia l e sto p p e l d o c trin e s “b a [ r] all iss u e s th a t m ig h t h a v e b e e n (o r c o u ld h a v e b e e n ) ra ise d a n d d e c id e d in th e in iti a l su it, p lu s all iss u e s tha t w e re a c tu a llyd e c id e d in t he fi r s tcaus e of a ct i on. ” L itt le , 7 0 4 S o . 2 d a t 1 3 3 7 -3 8
. See al s o Hol li day , 149 So. 2d at528 ( “A j udgm entbar s a s ubs equentappl i cat i on for t he same purpos e w her e t he fa ct s upon w hi ch it is b a s e d a re n o t c h a n g e d a n d th e c o n d itio n s a re s u b s ta n tia lly sim ila r.” ). ¶15. “U nder M i s s i s s i ppi l aw , r es j udi cat a or co ll ateral es t oppel pr ecl udes r el i t i gat i on of admi ni s t r at i ve dec i s i ons . ” S m ith , 797 So. 2d at963 ( i nvol vi ng a t er m i nat ed s t at e empl oy ee
w ho fai l ed t o appea l the d i s m i s s al deci s i on of t he Per s onnel A ct i on R evi ew B oar d t o t he ci r cui tcour tbyw r i tof ce r t i or ar i as m andat ed byM i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i ons 11- 51- 93 and - 9 5 ). See al

s o Zim m er m an , 747 So. 2d at861 ( i nvol vi ng t he fa i l ur e of A ppel l antt o fi l e an appea l of t he P er m i t B oar d’ s deci s i on w i t hi n t w ent y day s aft er i t w as ent er ed i nt o t he books

as m andat ed byM i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 49- 17- 29)
. A ccor di ng t o Zim m er m an , “[o] nce a n
a g e n c yd e c isio n is m a d e a n d th e d e c isio n re m a in s u n a p p e a led b e y o n d th e tim e to a p p e a l, i t i s b arred byadmi ni s t r at i ve r es j udi cat a orcol l at er al es t oppel
. ” 747 So. 2d at861 ( ci t i ng Hood , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d at 2 6 8 ). S ee a lso Mis s . Em pl . Se c . Com m ’ n v . Phi lade l phia Mun.

### 14

S e p a ra te S c h . D ist. o

f N e sh o b a C o u n ty , 437 So. 2d 388, 396 ( M i s s . 1983) ( t he doctr i ne of col l at er al esto p p el appl i es t o admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocee di ngs )
. I n Hood , t hi s C our tfound t hat

“ [ a ]b se n t sta tu te to th e c o n tra ry , a c h a n c e ry c o u rt is p re c lu d e d b ye ith e r d o c trin e [ re s ju d ica ta
o r co ll ateral esto p p el] o n ce an ad m inist rati v e ag en cy , ac ti n g in a f ac t- fin d ing ca p ac ity , en ters i t s r ul i ng. ” 571 So. 2d at 269, fn. 5. T hi s C our ts peci fi cal l ydet er m i ned i n Hood that “[ i] f

an ag g ri ev ed stat e e m p loy ee w ere all o w ed to b ri n g h is Se cti o n 1 9 8 3 claim in ch an ce ryco u rt aft erexhaus t i ng hi s admi ni s t r at i ve r emedi es and j udi ci al r evi ew t her eof, w e w oul d be

s anct i oni ng a dupl i cat i on of pr oces s . ” Id
. a t 2 6 8
. Bu ts ee E as t Mis s is s i ppiState H

os p. v. Calle ns , 892 So. 2d 800, 822 ( M i s s . 2004) ( overr ul i ng Hood t o t he e xt e nt i t den i es a d isc h a rg e d sta te e m p lo y e e th e rig h t to a ss e rt a p p ro p ria ted S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 c laim s a g a in st s tate offi ci al s i n t hei rper s onal ori ndi vi dual capa ci t i es )
. T hi s C our thas found t hatt he Hood hol di ng “di ct at es t hatt he doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a pr ecl udes notonl yfur t herl i t i gat i on of cl ai m s t hatw er e ac t ual l yr ai s ed i n a pr i orpr ocee di ng, butal s o anycl ai m t hatcoul d have be en
r ai s ed i n t he ea r l i ers ui t
. ” S m ith , 797 So. 2d at963 ( ci t i ng Hood , 5 7 1 S o . 2 d a t 2 6 7 -6 9 ). ¶16. Sect i on 27- 73- 1 w as an “a ddi t i onal an d su p p lem en tal m et hod of r efundi ng t axes
er r oneous l ypai d” t o “anyot her l aw pr ovi di ng for t he appl i cat i on forort he ce r t i fi cat i on of a cl ai m forr efund. ” M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 73- 1. I n ot herw or ds , bot h Sect i ons 27- 7- 7 1 , -7 3 a n d S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -1 w e re a v a ilab le to A p p e llan ts w h e n th e a c ti o n w a s in iti a lly

comm ence d. H ow ever , w hen A ppel l ant s chos e t o s eek r el i ef unde rSect i ons 27- 7- 71 and - 73, t heyal s o beca m e bound b y the pr ovi s i ons of t hos e s t atut es and t he r es ul t i ng out come. Se c t i o n 2 7
- 7
- 7 3 e x p r e s s l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e Ta x Commi s s i o n d e t e r mi n a t i o n “s hal l be f i nal ”

### Of a ddi t i ona ls i gni fi c anc e , Appe l l ant s ful l y pa i d the t ax assessm e nt , pr e s e nt e d a 21 

### le tt er to the T ax Co mm is si on st at ing that they were no t app ea li ng it s f inalOrder, and then w a itedo v er tw o years b ef o re f irst adv an cin g th eir th eo ry reg ard in g S ectio n2 7 -7 3 -1 's a p p l i c ab i l i ty. See footnot e 20. 22 

### 15 un l ess a pet i t i on w as fi l ed in t he ch ancerycou rtseeki ng a “hea ri ng of the case on i t s m eri t s” and ac compa n ied by“a bond .
. . i n a s um doubl e t he amount i n cont r over s y . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i o n 27- 7- 73. T he Tax C om m i s s i on ful l ycons i der ed t he i s s ue and e nt er ed a d e ter m in a tio n a g a in st A p p e llan ts u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -7 -7 3 . W h e n A p p e llan ts c h o se n o t to appea l t he Tax C om m i s s i on’ s det er m i nat i on and pai d t he t ax, fi nal i t y at t ache d underSect i on 27- 7- 73. A s t he doctr i nes of r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel appl yt o admi ni s t r at i ve deci s i ons , t he fi nal i t y o f Sect i on 27- 7- 73 j udi ci al l yfor ecl os es t he A ppel l ant s fr om now
u tiliz in g S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -1
. See S m ith , 79 7 So
. 2d a t 9 6 3 ; Zim m er m an , 747 So. 2d at861; Hood , 571 So. 2d at268. T o hol d ot her w i s e w oul d eff ect i vel ys t r i p Sect i ons 27- 7- 71, and

- 73 of t he for ce theyw er e l egi s l at i vel y cr eat ed t o pos s es s and m ake a m ockeryof t he t i m eh o n o re d p rin c ip les o f

re s ju d ica ta a n d c o llate ra l es to p p e l. 21 ¶ 1 7
. E ven i f a n a p p e a l u n d e r Se c t i o n 2 7
- 7 3
- 1 was n o t b a r r e d b y t h e doct r i nes of r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel , A ppel l ees ar gue t hatt he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons i n Sect i on 27- 73- 5 w oul d bart he ac t i on. Sect i on 27- 73- 5, t he appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons foract i ons br oughtunderSect i on 27- 73- 1, r equi r es t he s ui tt o be fi l ed w i t hi n t hr ee y ear s of t he dat e t he

r etur n i s fi l ed, t he dat e t he t ax as s es s m enti s m ade, ort he dat e t he t ax w as pai d, w hi cheve r i s ear l i es t
. T he r etur ns w er e fi l ed betw een 1990 a nd 199 5 ; t he t ax as s es s m entw as m ade

22

o n Ju n e 1 , 1 9 9 9 ; an d th e tax w a s p a id o n M a y1 1 , 2 0 0 1 . B e c a u se th e su it w a s n o t f iled u n til

### 16

Febr uar y 19, 2004, m or e t han t hr ee y ear s had pas s ed fr om everyappl i cabl e dat e exc eptt he d a te th e tax w a s p a id . A p p e ll a n ts re sp o n d th a t th is a rg u m e n t is u n su p p o rta b le b e c a u se its anal y s i s hi nges upon t he ass um pt i on t hat t he A ppel l ant s r i ghtt o cl ai m a r efund c oul d have expi r ed pr i ort o t he as s es s m entorpaym entof t he t axes . Si m pl ys t at ed, A ppel l ant s ar gue t hat i f Sect i on 27- 73- 5 i s appl i ed i n t hi s fas hi on, t he s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons coul d bara par t yfr om
as s er t i ng a r i ght befor e i teverar os e, vi ol at i ng t he due pr oces s cl aus e of both t he M i s s i s s i ppi C o n s titu tio n a n d th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . See B el l v. U ni on & P lanters ’B ank & T r ust C o. , 1 5 8 M iss . 4 8 6 , 1 3 0 S o . 4 8 6 , 4 8 7 (1 9 3 0 ) (“ A sta tu te o f lim itatio n s, w h ich a ttem p ts to b a r a d e b t w it h o u t g iv in g re a so n a b le tim e w ith in w h ich th e rig h t m a yb e p re se rv e d , is vi ol at i ve of the contr actcl aus e ( ar t i cl e 1, § 10, cl
. 1) , as w el l as t he due pr oces s cl aus e, of t he F ed era l C o n sti tuti o n (A m en d m en t 14 ) an d o f th e li k e p rov isi o n s in o u r st ate C o n sti tuti o n . ”). A s s um i ng ar guendo, t hat begi nni ng t he st atut e of l i m i t at i ons fr om t he dat e r etur ns w er e fi l ed

w ou l d b e con st i t uti on al l yi nfir m , w e are not requi red t o address t his , as t he fa ct s i n thi s case
es t abl i s h t hatappr oxi m at el yfoury ear s and ni ne mont hs pas s ed betw een the dat e of

as s es s m ent( J une 1, 1999) and t he dat e t he s ui tw as fi l ed ( Febr uar y19, 2004)
. C l ear l y , t he statu te of

li m it ati o n s w o u ld h av e e x p ir e d , a s s u m ing a S ec ti o n 2 7 -73 -1 a cti o n w ere perm i ssi ble, un der this setof f act s. I I I . W het her M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 7- 73 i s uncons t i t ut i o na l a nd w het her t he chancel l or er red in re ly ing ex cl usi vel y on i t as t he l egal basi s f or a r u lin g th a t A p p e lla n ts w e r e b a r r e d fr o m se e k in g a r e f u n d o f o v e r p a id t ax es pursuant t o M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 73- 1. ¶ 1 8
. O n lyif

th is C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t an a c tio n b a se d o n S e c tio n 2 7 -7 -7 3 w a s su sta in a b le

w o u l d w e b e r e q u i r e d t o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e rt h e s t a t u t e c o u l d w i t h s t a n d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s c r u t i n y.

### N o te also th at S ectio n2 7 -7 -7 3 h as sin ce b eenrep ealed
. See f o o tn o te 1 4
. 23 

### 17 H ow ever , beca us e t hi s C our thas det er m i ned t hatbot h Sect i ons 27- 7- 71 and - 73 and Sect i on 27- 73- 1 w er e ava i l able t o A ppel l ant s w hen t he ac t i on w as i ni t i al l ycomm ence d, any
a rg u m e n t re g a rd in g th e u n c o n stitu tio n a lityo f S e c tio n 2 7 -7 -7 3 is m isp lac e d
. A p p e llan ts 23 beca m e bound by t he pr ovi s i ons of Sect i ons 27- 7- 71 and

- 73 w hen t hey el ect ed t o s eek r el i ef t her eunder
. T hey had t he opt i on of pay i ng t he cont es t ed t axes and pr ocee di ng underSect i on 27- 73- 1. A ppel l ant s el ect ed t o us e t he admi ni s t r at i ve appe al s pr ocedur es of Sect i on 27- 7- 71 and, upon bei ng deni ed r el i ef ther eunder , el ect ed n o t t o appea l t he fi nal O r derof t he Tax C o m m issi o n . T h ere af ter, they p aid th e tax asse ssm en t. T h e T ax C o m m issi o n ’s deter m i nati on un der Sec t i on 27 -7- 73 , no tbeing ap pealed, becam e fi nal. T o h old ot herw i se

“ w o u ld d e p ri v e § 2 7 -7 -7 3 o f a n yo p e ra tiv e f

o rc e .” IV . B ec a u se th e c ircu m stan ce s su rr o u n d ing a letter w ritten b y A p p ell a n ts rem ai ns unres ol ved and the C ourt f ai l ed t o co n sider t he f i nanci al con d i ti on of A p p el l an ts , w h eth e r g e n u i n e i ssues of m ateri al f act ex i st w hi ch s houl d have precl uded th e chan cel l or’ s grant of s um m ary ju d g m en t. ¶19. A ppel l ant s cont end t he cha ncel l orfai l ed t o cons i derw het hert hei rfi nanci al condi t i on in 2 0 0 1 p r e c lu d e d th e m f ro m p ro c e e d in g u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -7 -7 3 . A p p e llan ts a rg u e th a t in

s pi t e of the pl ai n l anguage of t hei rM ay11, 2001 l et t er( “The capt i oned t axpay er s ar e not
a p p e a lin g t he final O rderof the M i ssi ssi pp i S t at e T ax C om m i ssi on . . . . ”) and t heirfull paym entof t he t ax as s es s m ent , w hi ch cr eat ed fi nal i t y i n t he T ax C om m i s s i on’ s O r derunder Sect i on 27- 7- 73, t he cha ncel l ors houl d have i nt ui t ed t h eir s ur r oundi ng ci r cumst ance s ( i
. e. i n a b i l i t y t o o b t a i n t h e a p p e a l b o n d wi t h i n t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s )
. T h i s a r g u me n t l a c k s me r i t
. As

### 18

A p p e llan ts f

a iled to a p p e a l o r oth e rw ise se e k re lief f ro m th e T a x C o m m iss io n ’s O rd e r w ith in t hi r t y( 30) day s of r ece i vi ng not i ce, t hatO r d er b ec am e fi nal and i s non- appea l abl e. A ny at t empt t o ci r cumvent t hatfi nal i t yi s bar r ed under t he doctr i nes of r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al

e s to p p e l. See S m ith , 7 9 7 S o . 2 d a t 9 6 3 ; Zim m er m an , 7 4 7 S o . 2 d a t 8 6 1 ; Hood , 571 So. 2d

a t 2 6 8 . T h e re f

o re , n o g e n u in e is su e s o f m a ter ial f

a c t ex ist, an d A p p e llee s a re “ e n tit led to j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” H ar dy , 8 2 6 So
. 2 d a t7 4 ( q u o t i ng R obinson , 732 So. 2d at 2 0 7 ). CO NC L US I ON ¶20. For t he afor ement i oned r eas ons , t hi s C our t aff i r m s t he chanc el l or ’ s deci s i on t o gr ant
sum m aryj ud gm ent for A pp el l ees. ¶ 2 1
. AF F I RM ED . S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y AND C ARL S ON, J J . , CONCUR. COBB , P . J . , AND DI CKI NS ON, J . , CONCUR I N RE S UL T ONL Y W I THOUT S EPARATE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON . GR AVES, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . DI AZ , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . GR AV E S , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶22. T he M aj or i t y aff ir m ed the chanc el l or ’ s deci s i on t o gr ant s um m ar y j udgm ent t o t he A t t or neyG ener al of t he S t at e of M i s s i s s i ppi and t he Execut i ve D i r ect orof t he D epar t m ent of Fi nance and A dm i ni s t r at i on. H ow ever, I am com pel l ed t o di s s ent
. T he opi ni on of t he M aj or i t ys peci fi cal l yappl i es i t s s t atut or yi nt erpr et at i on of M i s s . C ode A nn. Sect i on 27- 7- 71 and M i s s . Cod e Ann
. Se c t i o n 2 7
- 7
- 7 3 t o t h e f a c t s o f t h i s c a s e . Th e M a

j o r i t ya f f i r me d t he

c h a n c e llo r’s ru lin g th a t th e D a v is’ w e re n o t e n tit led to ju d icia l re v iew b e c a u se th e yf a iled to

### 19

see k rev iew o f t h e ad m inist rati v e de cisi o n w ith in th ir ty (30 ) da y s o f th e T ax C o m m issi o n ’s O r der , as r equi r ed bySect i on 2 7- 7- 73. B as ed upon t hi s i nt erpr et at i on, t he M aj or i t yopi nes t hatt he fa i l ur e t o appea l r ender ed t he T ax C om m i s s i on’ s O r derfi nal and unr evi ew abl e under th e d o c tr in e s o f

re s ju d ic a ta a n d c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l. ¶23. T he M aj or i t yi s s i m pl yi n er r orw hen i tappl i es i t s i nt erpr et at i on of Sect i on 27- 7- 71 and Sect i on 27- 7- 73 t o a re fund cl ai m s ubm i t t ed byt he D avi s ’ underSect i on 27- 73- 1, w hi ch

es t abl i s hes t hata r efund c an be s ought under t hat s ect i on foranyt ax w her e t he t axpay erhas p a id a n a m o u n t b e y o n d w h a t is d u e . U n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -1 , a ta x p a y e r h a s th e rig h t to p u rsu e a re f

u n d c laim f

o r o v e rp a id tax e s. F u rth e rm o re , a ta x p a y e r is e n tit led to th e b e n e f its

o f S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -1 , an d re lief c a n n o t b e d e n ied u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -1 o n th e b a sis th a t a t axp ay er’ s cl ai m i s barr ed u nd er Sect i on 27 -7- 73
. T here m ust exis tsom e i m ped i m ent agai nst t he clai m as l i st ed in S ect i on 27 -73-1. In t his case, t he S t at e’s argum ent w as t hat the D avis ’ cl ai m w as bar r ed once t he admi ni s t r at i ve appeal s pr oces s es of Sect i on 27- 7- 71 and Sect i on 27- 7- 73 w er e ut i l i zed
. T he St at e fur t herar gued thatbeca us e t he cl ai m w as bar r ed under Se c t i o n 2 7
- 7
- 7 3 , t h i s b a r o f r e l i e f e x t e n d e d t o p r e c l u d e t h e Dav i s ’ f r o m s e e k i n g a r efund underSect i on 27- 73- 1. T hi s anal y s i s i s cl ear l yer r oneous . T he s t atut or ys ect i ons r el i ed upon b yth e S tate a re se p a ra te a n d d istin c t f ro m th e p a rticu lar c o d e se c tio n u se d b yth e D a v is’ to

se e k a re f

u n d . M iss . C o d e A n n . S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -1 s p e c if ic a llyd e a ls w ith tax re f u n d s, w h ile Sect i on s 2 7 -7-7 1 and 27- 7- 73 di s cus s t he r emedi es avai l abl e t o a t axpay eraft eran
as s es s m enti s m ade. T hes e s t atut es ar e s epar at e, di s t i nct , and i ndepende nt
. T h er e i s no ques t i on t hat Sect i on 27- 73- 1 appl i es t o t he overpaym entof i ncome t axes beca us e i n S ta te

### 20

ex. r el . R i ce, A tt

y. G en. v. Mis s is s i

ppi I nsti t ute of

A er onauti cs , 198 M i s s . 288, 22 So. 2d 372 ( M i s s . 1945) , t hi s C our t confi r m ed t hat Sect i on 27- 73- 1 di d i n fac tappl yt o t he overpaym ent
o f in c o m e tax :

Bu ti ti s c o n t e n d e d b yt h e a p p e l l a n tt h a tCh a p t e r1 2 7 , L a ws 1944, gr ant i ng t he t axpay ert he ri g h t t o br i ng s uch a s ui tdoes n o t co v e r th is p a rticu lar c h a ra c ter o f c la im , s in c e it o n ly p ro v id e s tha t ‘if a n y p e rso n , f irm o r co rp o ra tio n a s p a id , o r sh a ll her eaf t er pay t o t he *** s t at e t ax comm i s s i on *** t hr ough er r or or ot herw i se, w hetherpaid und er prot est or no t , any ** * eccis e [s i c] t ax forw hi ch s uch per s on, fi r m orcorpor at i on w as not l i abl e, ori f anys uch t axpay erhas pai d any t ax i n exce s s of t he s um pr oper l ydue and s uch err oneous paym entorover - paym ent has been pa i d i nt o t he pr opert r eas ur y , t he t ax p ay ers hal l be enti tl ed t o a r efund of t he t axes s o er r oneous l ypai d. ’ T he pr eci s e cont ent i on of t he appe l l anti s t hatt he fa ct s r ender i ng t he paym entof t he t axes an overpaym ent or an err oneous paym ent m us thave e xi s t ed at t he t i m e t he i ncome t ax r etur n w as m ade on M a rc h 1 2 , 1 9 4 3
. B u t w e a re u n a b le to a g re e w ith th is cont ent i on. W e t hi nk that t he s ubs equentr enegot i at i on of t he cont r actas t o pr i ce r el at es back s o as t o r enderthe i ncome t ax on t he $94, 000 an overpaym ent , s i n c e the St at e Tax C om m i s s i on r ece i ved t he t ax subj ect t o t he ri ght of t he Feder al G over nm ent t o r equi r e t he r efund byt he t axpay er of s uch por t i on of t he t ot al compensa t i on pai d undert he contr act , t her ebyr ender i ng i tnontaxa b le i n co m e o f th e tax p ay er. I d . at374. ¶ 2 4
. I n B a r n e tt v . U n ite d S ta te s Ca s u a lty C o ., 21 So. 2d 5 ( M i s s . 1945) , t hi s C o u rt expl ai ned t hatSect i on 27-73 -1 const i t ut es an addi t i onal and s uppl ement al m et hod for p u rsuin g a tax re f

u n d w h en the tax p ay er is un ab le t o o b tai n reli ef thro u g h o rdin ary admi ni s t r at i ve cha nnel s . I n B a rn e tt , t hi s C our ts t at ed:

Save as t o t he par t i cul art axes sp ec ial l yexce pt ed, a t axpay er m aynow payt o a t ax coll ect or , s t at e orcount y , anyt ax demanded, t her ebynotdel ay i ng i t s paym ent , and w hen, upon

### 21 subsequ ent developm ent orascer t ai nm ent, i t i s foun d thatas a m at t erof ul t i m at e l i abi l i t yt he t ax, orful l amount , s o col l ect ed is no t r igh tfu ll yretaine d , a n d h e i s unab l e t o obt ai n rel i ef th r o u g h th e o r d in a r y a d m in istr a tiv e c h a n n e ls , h e m ay reso rt to the p o sit ive p rov isi o n s o f the m o d ern en ac tm en t last ci ted. If t hi s w as nott he purpos e of the ena ct m ent , i t h ad as w el l not b e e n p a ss e d a t all. I d . at 880 ( emphasi s added)
. T he fact s of t hi s cas e i ndi cat e t hatfi nanci al cons t r ai nt s pl ay ed

a m aj or r ol e i n t he D avi s ’ fai l ur e t o s ecur e t he appe al bond as r equi r ed byM i s s . C ode A nn S ec ti o n 2 7 -7-7 3
. T h is si tuation p lace d the D av is’ in the ca te g o ryo f tax p ay ers w h o w ere
u n ab le t o o b tai n reli ef

thro u g h o rdin aryad m inist rati v e c h an n els. T h ere fo re, Se cti o n 2 7 -73 -1

cons t i t ut ed t he addi t i onal and s uppl ement al m et hod byw hi ch t heycoul d pur s ue a r efund. ¶25. T he l egi slat ive inten t o f Sect i on 27- 7- 71 and Sect i on 27- 7- 73 w as t o out l i ne t he pr ocedur es i nvol ved i n t he admi ni s t r at i ve appe al s pr oces s conce r ni ng i ncome t ax and

w i t hhol di ng, not t o pr ecl ude t axpay er s fr om exer ci s i ng t hei r r i ght of r el i ef unde rSect i on 27- 73- 1. I f t hi s w as t he ca s e, t he l egi s l atur e w oul d have us ed r es t r i ct i ve l anguage i n t he s t atut es t o s i gni fyt hata barunder Sect i on 27- 7- 71 w oul d equal a bart o r el i ef unde rSect i on 27- 73- 1. C u rre n tly , the re is n o sta tu to rylan g u a g e in S e c tio n 2 7 -7 -7 1 o r S e c tio n 2 7 -7 -7 3 w h ich w o u ld

e x t e n d a s t a t u t o r y b a rt o r e l i e f t o S e c t i o n 2 7
- 7 3
- 1 i f

a c l a i m i s n o t a p p e a l e d w i t h i n t h i r t y d a ys underSect i on 27- 7- 71. Fur t her m or e, i n B a iley v . A l-Me fty , 8 0 7 S o .2 d 1 2 0 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 1 ), th is C our ts t at ed t he pr i m ar yr ul e of s t atut or ycons t r uct i on:

T he pr i m ar yr ul e of c ons t r uct i on i s t o as cer t ai n t he i nt ent of t he l egi s l atur e fr om t he s t atut e as w hol e and fr om t he l anguage us ed t her ei n. W her e t he s t atut e i s pl ai n and unambi guous there is no ro o m f o r c o n stru c tio n , b u t w h e re it is a m b ig u o u s th e c o u rt, i n det er m i ni ng t he l egi s l at ive i nt ent , m ayl ook notonl yt o t he

### 22 l anguage u sed b u tal s o t o i t s hi s t or i cal backgr ound, i t s s ubj ect m at t er , and t he purpos es and obj ect s t o be ac compl i s hed. I d. at1206. ¶ 2 6
. W h e n in ter p re tin g th e in ten t o f th e L e g isla tu re w h e n it e n a c ted S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -1 , this C our ti n Missi

ssi pp iCen t . R . C o. v. Ci t

y of H att i esbu rg , 163 M i s s . 311, 141 So. 897 ( 1932)

s ta te d th a t “ th e s ta tu te c re a te d a ri g h t a n d n o t a m e re re m e d y .” I d . a t 8 9 7
. T h is rig h t is

s epar at e, di s t i nct , and i ndepende ntof any t hi ng pr es cr i bed i n Sect i on 27- 7- 71 orSect i on 27- 7- 73, and not hi ng r el i ed upon byt he M aj or i t y ext i ngui s hes t he ri ght cr eat ed by Sect i on 27- 73- 1. T h is statu te c re a tes a n u n q u a lifie d rig h t to se e k a re f u n d a n d w h a t h a s o c c u rre d p re m a tu re ly abor t s t he pr oces s w her ebya r efund c an be s ought
. A bs ent any aut hor i t y w hi ch ext i ngui s hes t hi s s t atut or yr i ght , t he D avi s ’ ar e ent i t l ed t o pur s ue t hei r cl ai m underSect i on 27- 73- 1. T he

r i ghtof a t axpay ert o t he ent i t l ement of a r efund for t he overpaym entof t axes can be found in the lang u ag e o f S ec ti o n 2 7 -73 -1(1 ):

I f any per s on, fi r m or corpor at i on has pai d, ors hal l her eaf t erpay t o t he A u di t orof Publ i c A ccount s ort he C om m i s s i onerof Insur ance, throug h err or o r otherw i se, w hether paid u nd er pr otes t ornot , anyad val or em, pr i vi l ege orex cise tax forw hi ch t he per s on, fi r m orcorpor at i on w as notl i abl e, ori f anys uch t axpay er has pai d anyt ax i n exce s s of t he s um pr oper l ydue and s uch er r oneous paym ent or overpaym ent has been pai d i nt o t he pr oper tr ea su ry , the tax p ay er s hal l be ent i t l ed t o a ref und of t he t ax es so e r r o n e o u sly p a id
. T axes er r oneous l y pai d w i t hi n t he meani ng of t hi s s ect i on s hal l i ncl ude doubl e paym ent , oroverpaym ent , or paym enton s t at e, U ni t ed St at es , vaca nt and exem ptl and, and t he p u rc h a se p ric e p a id f

o r th e re d e m p tio n o f

lan d s e rro n e o u slyso ld f o r t a x e s . (E m p h asis ad d ed ).

### 23

¶27. T he w or d “s hal l ” i s us ed t o expr es s w hati s m andat or y . A bs entl anguage w i t h i n Sect i on 27- 73- 1 w hi ch w oul d pr ohi bi tt he ent i t l ement of a r efund i f a t axpay er ’ s cl ai m i s bar r ed under Sect i on 27- 7- 71, t he s t atut e mandat es t hata t axpay erbe al l ow ed t o exer ci s e hi s al t er nat i ve and

s u p p le m e n ta l r ig h t o f

re v ie w u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -1
. ¶2 8
. T h e M ajorit y also stat es in the o p inion that “b o th S ec ti o n 2 7 -7-7 1 an d S ec ti o n 2 7 -73 -1

w er e avai l abl e t o t he A ppel l ant s w hen t he ac t i on w as i ni t i al l ycomm ence d. H ow ever , w hen t he A ppel l ant s chos e t o s eek r el i ef unde r S ec ti o n s 27- 7- 71,
- 73, t heyal s o beca m e bound by t he pr ovi s i ons of t hos e s t atut es and t he r es ul t i ng outc om e. ” The M aj or i t ym us tnot e t hatno
s t atut or y l anguage exi s t s w hi ch can be i nt erpr et ed t o concl ude t hatt he Legi s l atur e i nt ended t h at t axpay er s onl yhave one opt i on as bet w een Sec t i on 27- 7- 71 and Sect i on 27- 73- 1. T he L egi s l atur e cr eat ed a r i ghtt o s eek a r efund. Fur t her m or e, t he “f i nal i t y ” l anguage r el i ed upon b ythe M ajorit yo n lyap p li es to S e c tion 2 7 -7-7 1 an d ca n n o t be im p o sed o n S ec ti o n 2 7 -73 -1 t o p recl ud e rel i ef on t he d octr i nes of res j ud i cat a and colla ter a l e st op pel. W hil e t he D avis ’ cl ai m s m ayhave r eac hed a s t age of “f i nal i t y ” as appl i ed t o t hei ri ni t i al pet i t i on underSect i on 27- 7- 73, t hi s di d not pr ecl ude t hem fr om exer ci s i ng t hei r r i ght of pot ent i al r el i ef f ora r efund underSect i on 27- 73- 1. ¶29
. In lig h t o f

the m aj ori t y op i nion, t ho se w ho kn ow i ng l y and vo l un t ari ly c h o o se to
overpay t hei r t axes w i t h an ey e t ow ar d s eeki ng a r efund upon f i l i ng a r etur n s houl d now be

r el uct antt o do s o bas ed on t hi s deci s i on. A ccor di ngl y , beca us e t he D avi s ’ ar e ent i t l ed t o t he ri g h t o f re v ie w o f

th e ir c la im u n d e r S e c tio n 2 7 -7 3 -1 , I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t.