Title: FENT v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION
Citation: 2008 OK 88, 201 P.3d 866
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: September 23, 2008

FENT v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION Annotate this Case FENT v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION 2008 OK 88 201 P.3d 866 Case Number: 105993 Decided: 09/23/2008 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA JERRY R. FENT, as a resident taxpayer, citizen and voter of the State of Oklahoma, and all other similar taxpaying persons, Petitioner, v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA ex rel., Oklahoma Tax Commission; and THOMAS E. KEMP, JR., JERRY JOHNSON and CONSTANCE IRBY in their official capacity as its Commissioners, Respondents. APPLICATION TO ASSUME ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND WRITS OF INJUNCTION AND/OR MANDAMUS ¶0 Petitioner asks this Court to assume original jurisdiction and issue declaratory, mandamus, and/or injunction relief against the Respondents to hold Senate Bill No. 2434 unconstitutional because it waives penalty, interest and other collection fees due on eligible taxes if the taxpayer voluntarily files delinquent tax returns and pays the taxes during the compliance initiative beginning September 15, 2008 and ending on November 14, 2008. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ASSUMED; RELIEF DENIED. Jerry R. Fent, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Pro Se Petitioner. Douglas B. Allen, General Counsel, Guy L. Hurst, Assistant General Counsel, Sean R. McFarland, Assistant General Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondents. PER CURIAM, ¶1 The issue before this Court is the constitutionality of Enrolled Senate Bill 2034, ¶2 The Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Bill because it waives the penalty, interest and other collection fees due on unpaid taxes during a two month period beginning September 15, 2008 and ending on November 14, 2008. Except as to tax and assessment charges against real property remaining delinquent and unpaid for a period of time as long or longer than that provided by law to authorize the taking title to real property by prescription, the Legislature shall have no power to release or extinguish, or to authorize the releasing or extinguishing, in whole or in part, the indebtedness, liabilities, or obligations of any corporation or individual, to this State, or any county or other municipal corporation thereof. ¶3 The Petitioner claims that the penalty, interest and other collection fees fall within the § 53 prohibition of releasing or extinguishing tax indebtedness, liabilities, or obligations. That assertion relies on ¶4 In addition, we find City of McAlester v. Jones, ¶5 In Jones, the Court observed that courts will interfere and declare an act invalid and void only where the act of the Legislature is clearly, palpably, and plainly inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the Constitution. Jones, ¶6 Original jurisdiction is assumed. The Petitioner's request for relief is denied. ALL JUSTICES CONCUR FOOT