Title: Terral Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma St. Bd. of Equalization
Citation: 2023 OK 51
Docket Number: 
State: Oklahoma
Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Date: May 2, 2023

Terral Telephone Co. v. Oklahoma St. Bd. of Equalization Annotate this Case Justia Opinion Summary Respondent Oklahoma State Board of Equalization, assessed an ad valorem tax concerning on the property of Complainant Terral Telephone Company. The Company protested the assessment, and the Board moved to dismiss the protest, alleging the protest was non-compliant and untimely. The Court of Tax Review agreed and ruled that the protest did not comply with the statutes and rules necessary to invoke its jurisdiction. The Company appealed the ruling to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which after review, affirmed the Court of Tax Review. Read more Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Oklahoma Supreme Court? Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More › You already receive new opinion summaries from Oklahoma Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here . TERRAL TELEPHONE CO. v. OKLAHOMA STATE BD. OF EQUALIZATION 2023 OK 51 Case Number: 120943 Decided: 05/02/2023 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA NOTICE: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL. TERRAL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellant/Complainant, v. OKLAHOMA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Appellee/Respondent. APPEAL FROM COURT OF TAX REVIEW; TOM L. NEWBY, CHIEF JUDGE, DONNA L. DIRICKSON, CHRISTINE LARSON, JUDGES ¶0 The Respondent, Oklahoma State Board of Equalization, assessed the ad valorem tax concerning the property of the Complainant, Terral Telephone Company. The Complainant protested the assessment. The Respondent moved for dismissal alleging the protest was non-compliant and untimely. The Court of Tax Review agreed and ruled that the protest did not comply with the statutes and rules necessary to invoke its jurisdiction. The Complainant appealed the ruling to this Court and we retained the matter. We affirm the ruling of the Court of Tax Review. MOTION TO RETAIN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF TAX REVIEW AFFIRMED William K. Elias, Wyatt D. Swinford, Jay W. Dobson, and Brittany N. Dowd, ELIAS, BOOKS, BROWN & NELSON, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Appellant/Complainant Christy D. Keen, Assistant General Counsel, OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondent/Appellee COMBS, J.: FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶1 On June 17, 2022, the Appellee/Respondent, Oklahoma State Board of Equalization (OSBE), mailed the Appellant/Complainant, Terral Telephone Company (TTC), a notice of ad valorem tax assessment which was dated June 16, 2022. This notice is a statutory requirement pursuant to 68 O.S. 2021, § 2881(A) and is required to be mailed within one (1) working day from the date it is prepared.1 Section 2881(A) also requires that the notice clearly mark the date that it was prepared. It provides that a taxpayer "shall have twenty (20) calendar days from the date of the notice in which to file" a written complaint, i.e., the complaint must be filed within twenty days from the date of the notice's preparation date as indicated on the notice.2 The notice also informed the taxpayer that it was made in accordance with § 2881, Rules of the Court of Tax Review (RCTR), "68 O.S. Ch. 1, Art. 28, App." and that "Rule 11 of the rules of the Court of Tax Review provides the format for the complaint." The notice's preparation date was listed on the notice as June 16, 2022. Therefore, the last day to file a written complaint was July 6, 2022, which is twenty (20) days from that date. ¶2 Rule 2 (RCTR) provides that the time for filing a complaint pursuant to § 2881 is jurisdictional and may not be waived or otherwise extended.3 Rule 3 (A)(RCTR) provides strict compliance requirements for the contents of the complaint.4 It requires the complaint to comply with Rule 11 (RCTR), Form No. 15, it must state the year of the ad valorem assessment to be reviewed, it must attach a properly completed form prescribed by the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC), it must specify the counties where the property is located, it must be filed within thirty (30) days of the notice of assessment [rather than twenty (20) days]6, it must have an attached copy of the notice, and it shall specify the amount of the assessed valuation protested. ¶3 Terral Telephone Company is a corporation. On July 7, 2022, the president, Chad Segress, of TTC mailed by certified mail a Form OTC 9897 (Notice of Protest to the State Board of Equalization and the Oklahoma Tax Commission of Filing in Court of Tax Review) to the Court of Tax Review to protest the valuation assessment. Mr. Segress is not an attorney. The Court Clerk of the Court of Tax Review stamped the Form OTC 989 as filed on July 11, 2022. No complaint, as required by both statute and rules, or any other required documents were filed. Two days later, July 13, 2022, this Court issued an order informing Mr. Segress that he failed to file a complaint as required by Rules 3 and 11 (RCTR), and failed to state the counties in which the property at issue is located, as required by Rule 3 (RCTR). The order directed him to file a complaint in compliance with Rule 11(RCTR), Form No. 1 by July 22, 2022. On July 22, 2022, TTC, through its attorney, filed a First Amended Complaint to Review 2022 Ad Valorem Tax Assessment with the Court Clerk of the Court of Tax Review. This so-called amended complaint appears to comply with the content requirements of § 2881 and Rules 3 and 11(RCTR). ¶4 On August 9, 2022, the OSBE moved to dismiss these proceedings due to TTC's failure to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review. The grounds alleged for dismissal were that TTC's July 11, 2022 filing of Form OTC 989 was not a complaint but was instead only a form that needed to be attached to a complaint, was untimely because it was not filed within twenty (20) days from the date of preparation indicated on the notice of assessment and did not meet the other strict compliance content requirements of Rule 3(A)(4)(RCTR) or the requirements of § 2881 and Rule 11(RCTR). Therefore, pursuant to Rule 2(RCTR), a complaint had not been timely filed and the Court of Tax Review lacked jurisdiction. After reviewing the motion, TTC's response and OSBE's reply, the Court of Tax Review granted the motion to dismiss. The Court's November 23, 2022 Order dismissed the protest with prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The Court held that § 2881 requires the complainant to file a written complaint with the Court Clerk of the Court of Tax Review within twenty (20) days from the date of the notice of assessment. Rule 2 (RCTR) makes the timely filing of the complaint a jurisdictional requirement. Mr. Segress is not an attorney and he filed only a Form OTC 989 on July 11, 2022. The Form OTC 989 is required to be attached to the complaint. Further, the complaint is to be in the required form as provided in Rule 11(RCTR), Form No. 1 and must strictly comply with the provisions of Rule 3(A)(4)(RCTR). The Court held the July 11, 2022 Form OTC 989 is null and void because: 1) it was not signed by an attorney; 2) it was filed more than twenty (20) days after the notice of assessment; and, 3) it did not comply with Rule 11(RCTR), Form No. 1. It concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter because of TTC's failure to file a complaint in proper form and in a timely manner (Rule 3(A)(4)(RCTR) and § 2881). The Order also held that the July 13, 2022, Order of this Court, directing TTC to file a complaint in the proper form, did not determine the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review. ¶5 On December 21, 2022, TTC filed a petition in error in this Court. It also moved for this Court to treat the matter as an accelerated appeal and retain the matter for this Court's review. Both were granted. STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶6 The subject of this appeal is OSBE's motion for entry of order of dismissal which was granted by the Court of Tax Review. The purpose of a motion to dismiss is to test the law that governs the claim in litigation rather than to examine the underlying facts of that claim. Samson Resources Co. v. Newfield Exploration Mid-Continent, 2012 OK 68, ¶10, 281 P.3d 1278 , 1281 (citation omitted). Whether a claim should have been dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law this Court reviews de novo. Id. ANALYSIS ¶7 The issues before us are one of law, i.e., whether the Court of Tax Review has subject matter jurisdiction to hear TTC's protest of the ad valorem tax assessment. TTC claims it complied with relevant rules and statutes pertaining to the protest. However, the facts underlying its alleged compliance are not at issue. When TTC mailed/filed its first attempt at a protest and its later amended complaint are not disputed. The question is whether the actions of TTC in attempting to file a protest satisfied the legal requirements to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review. We hold, it did not. ¶8 TTC asserts that the Court of Tax Review failed to interpret numerous ambiguities in the law in its favor. They had previously cited McGannon v. State, 1912 OK 384, 124 P. 1063, 1067 to support their assertion that any ambiguity in tax law provisions must be construed most strongly against the state and in favor of the taxpayer.8 We recently presented clarity to this construction of tax statutes. In Assessments for Tax Year 2012 of Certain Properties Owned by Throneberry v. Wright, 2021 OK 7, ¶¶ 18-20, 481 P.3d 883, 893, we held such construction was not applicable to an asserted ambiguity in 68 O.S. § 2884. We explained "'[t]he rule means that the provisions of statutes levying taxes will not be extended by implication beyond the clear import of the language used.'" Id. ¶19, 481 P.3d at 893 (footnote omitted). We noted the § 2884 controversy concerned an interpretation of the term "interest" in the statute and did not involve the imposition of a tax by implication. Id. Secondly, doubts must arise from ambiguous, conflicting, or uncertain statutory language in the tax law itself. Id. ¶20. The tax statute at issue contained no ambiguity, uncertainty, or internal conflict. Id. ¶9 TTC claims it substantially complied with the filing requirements when it mailed Form OTC 989 to the Court Clerk of the Court of Tax Review on July 7, 2022. TTC argues the document was on a form prescribed by the OTC and it substantially complied with § 2881 as required by Rule 3(B)(RCTR). TTC suggests two ways the filing of the form was timely: 1) it filed Form OTC 989 within thirty (30) days of the notice of assessment as required, at that time, by Rule 3(A)(RCTR), or 2) the Form OTC 989 was timely filed within twenty (20) days of the mailing of the notice of assessment pursuant to § 2881(B). These assertions reflect TTC's alleged ambiguities in the provisions of § 2881 and Rule 3(RCTR). All of the alleged ambiguities relate to the required procedure necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review; none involve an ambiguity related to substantive provisions imposing an ad valorem tax assessment, which is the subject of this protest, or to any provision that ambiguously imposes a tax by implication. ¶10 First, we will address the required contents that must be filed in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review. Section 2881 and Rule 3(RCTR) require the filing of a written complaint and Rule 2(RCTR) makes the filing of a complaint jurisdictional. The Form OTC 989 is only a notice of protest and it specifically refers to 68 O.S. § 2881. TTC mailed the notice of protest on July 7, 2022 but did not include a complaint. Rule 11(RCTR), Form No. 1 provides the form and content of the complaint. Rule 3(A)(4) (RCTR), (amnd. by Order of the Oklahoma Supreme Court in In re: Amendments to Rules for the Oklahoma Court of Tax Review, 1997 OK 85) further provides the required content of the complaint: A. Strict Compliance. Complaints and notices of intent to appeal shall be in strict compliance with the following: . . . . 4. Proceeding pursuant to § 2881: A complaint filed with the Court of Tax Review pursuant to 68 O.S.Supp.1995 § 2881 (as amended by H.B. 1338, eff. July 1, 1997), must comply with Rule 11 Form No. 1. The Complaint must state the year of the ad valorem assessment to be reviewed. The Complaint must have attached as Exhibit A the properly completed form prescribed by the Oklahoma Tax Commission. 68 O.S.Supp.1995 § 2881(A), (as amended by H.B. 1338, eff. July 1, 1997). The Complaint must specify the counties where the property is located. The Complaint must be filed within thirty (30) days of the notice of assessment, and the Complaint must have attached as Exhibit B a copy of the notice. 68 O.S.Supp.1995 § 2881(A), (as amended by H.B. 1338, eff. July 1, 1997). The Complaint shall specify the amount of the assessed valuation protested. Id. Rule 2(RCTR) is clear that the timeliness for filing a "complaint" cannot be waived or otherwise extended. TTC argues that Rule 3(B)(RCTR) only requires it to substantially comply with title 68 and its filing of Form OTC 989 amounts to substantial compliance. Subsection B of Rule 3 provides: B. Substantial Compliance. Complaints, protests, and notices of intent to appeal shall be in substantial compliance with the applicable provisions of Title 68 authorizing the filing thereof. Both § 2881 and Subsection A of Rule 3(RCTR) require a complaint be filed. Although subsection B requires substantial compliance with the applicable provisions of title 68, subsection A requires "strict compliance" for the content of the complaint. The Form OTC 989, for instance, does not provide the required information concerning the counties and congressional districts where the property is located. This information is required on Rule 11(RCTR), Form No. 1 and Rule 3(A)(4)(RCTR) states that the complaint "must comply with Rule 11 Form No. 1." There is no way the filing of Form OTC 989 alone amounted to substantial compliance with these requirements in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review. "It is axiomatic, that in most instances, ignorance of the law is no excuse, and every person is presumed to know the law." Estes v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2008 OK 21, ¶22, 184 P.3d 518 , 526. ¶11 The June 16, 2022 notice of assessment letter which was mailed to TTC on June 17, 2022, specifically referenced 68 O.S. § 2881, the Rules of the Court of Tax Review, "68 O.S. Ch. 1, Art. 28, App.," and states the format of the complaint is found in Rule 11(RCTR). In addition, Form OTC 989 states that to be timely filed, the Court of Tax Review must be in receipt of the notice of protest on or before twenty (20) days from the "date listed" on the notice. Subsection A of Section 2881 provides: The notice, which shall clearly be marked with the date upon which it was prepared, shall be mailed within one (1) working day of such date. The taxpayer shall have twenty (20) calendar days from the date of the notice in which to file, with the Clerk of the Court of Tax Review, a written complaint on a form prescribed by the Tax Commission . . . . Although the OTC provides the Form OTC 989 and does not provide the written complaint form, the notice of assessment letter clearly indicates that the format of the complaint is in Rule 11(RCTR) and gives a citation where to find the rules. TTC asserts that the language "the taxpayer shall have twenty (20) days from the date of the notice" in the second sentence quoted above is ambiguous because it could be interpreted to mean a taxpayer has twenty (20) days from the date of mailing of the notice of assessment to file its protest. It further believes this is apparent when reading subsection B of § 2881 which provides: B. If the taxpayer fails to file a written complaint within the twenty-day period provided for in this section, then the assessed valuation stated in the notice, without further action of the State Board of Equalization, shall become final and absolute at the expiration of twenty (20) days from the date the notice is mailed to the taxpayer. However, there is no ambiguity here. Subsection B states if the tax payer fails to file a written complaint as provided in this section (not subsection), then the assessed valuation shall become final at the expiration of twenty (20) days from the date the notice of assessment was mailed to the taxpayer. The "date the notice is mailed" language in subsection B only refers to when the assessed valuation becomes final. The first part of the sentence is referring to the time period to file a written complaint which is found in subsection A. When reading the two quoted sentences together in subsection A it is clear that the written complaint must be filed within twenty (20) days of the date the notice was prepared which is to be "clearly . . . marked" on the notice of assessment. The first quoted sentence in subsection A also requires the notice of assessment to be mailed within one (1) day of the date it was prepared. Therefore, TTC's assertion that the time period ran from either the date the notice of assessment was mailed (June 17, 2022) or the date of his receipt of the notice (June 22, 2022) are without merit. TTC filed a Form OTC 989 on July 7, 2022, which alone, as mentioned, did not comply with the necessary requirements of a complaint. July 6, 2022, was the last day that TTC could file its complaint. TTC was one day late in filing but what it filed was not the required complaint necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review.9 ¶12 TTC next argues that the applicable version of Rule 3(RCTR) provided that a taxpayer had thirty (30) days to file a complaint and § 2881 provides a twenty (20) day period to file a complaint which causes an ambiguity that should be resolved in a taxpayer's favor. As in Assessments for Tax Year 2012 of Certain Properties Owned by Throneberry v. Wright, 2021 OK 7, 481 P.3d 883, the asserted ambiguity here does not concern an ambiguity which might impose a tax by implication. The alleged ambiguity concerns a procedural provision necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review. The provisions, however, are irreconcilably in conflict with one another. When a rule irreconcilably conflicts with a statute the provisions of the statute shall prevail. Ark. La. Gas Co. v. Travis, 1984 OK 33, ¶7, 682 P.2d 225 , 227; Cole v. State ex. rel. Dept. of Public Safety, 2020 OK 67, ¶5, 473 P.3d 467, 475 (Gurich, C.J. dissenting)("When a rule or regulation conflicts with a statutory enactment, the statute prevails."). Therefore, the statutory twenty (20) day period from the date of the preparation of the notice of assessment, which is required to be clearly listed on the notice of assessment, is the date from which the period to file a complaint commences and TTC failed to comply with this jurisdictional requirement. In other words, the complainant has twenty (20) days from the date listed on the notice of assessment to file its complaint. TTC's argument that it complied with the July 13, 2022 Order of this Court and filed a proper amended complaint on July 22, 2022, does not extend the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review.10 Again, TTC argues that the first amended complaint was filed within thirty (30) days of the date it received (June 22, 2022) the notice of assessment. Neither the thirty (30) day period in the relevant version of Rule 3(RCTR) nor the date of receipt of a notice of assessment is applicable in determining the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review. Even if the thirty (30) day period was found to be applicable, TTC's first amended complaint would have to have been filed within thirty (30) days from the date listed on the notice of assessment in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review and July 22, 2022 would have been more than thirty days from that date. The July 13, 2022 Order pointed out the deficiencies in TTC's first filing. It did not attempt to rule on whether the Court of Tax Review had jurisdiction of the matter nor could it extend the filing period under the provisions of Rule 2(RCTR).11 CONCLUSION ¶13 Taxpayer, TTC, attempted to protest an ad valorem tax assessment made by the OSBE. It made two attempts to comply with the statute and rules to file a complaint. Both were untimely and failed to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Tax Review. MOTION TO RETAIN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED; COURT OF TAX REVIEW AFFIRMED Kane, C.J., Rowe, V.C.J., Winchester, Edmondson, Combs, and Darby, JJ. -- concur; Kauger, J. -- concur in part, dissent in part; Gurich (by separate writing) and Kuehn, JJ., - dissent. FOOT