Opinion ID: 1118224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Jurisdiction Open Courts Provision

Text: Preliminarily, the Commission argues that because the Jensens failed to deposit the full amount of the assessed taxes, interest, and penalties with the Commission prior to seeking appellate review, as required by statute, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the appeal. We disagree. Section 59-1-505 provides, A taxpayer who, after receiving a final decision from the commission in accordance with the other provisions of this part, desires to seek judicial review of that decision shall deposit the full amount of the taxes, interest, and penalties with the commission. Utah Code Ann. § 59-1-505 (1987). [1] The Jensens assert, and we accept, their inability to comply fully with the terms of § 59-1-505. Strict application of that section would therefore preclude judicial review of the Commission's final order in this case. The Utah Constitution guarantees citizens access to the courts to protect certain individual rights. The open courts provision of the Utah Constitution, article I, section 11, states: All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done to him in his person, property or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law, which shall be administered without denial or unnecessary delay; and no person shall be barred from prosecuting or defending before any tribunal in this State, by himself or counsel, any civil cause to which he is a party. In Industrial Commission v. Evans, 52 Utah 394, 174 P. 825 (1918), this Court held that an employer was entitled to judicial review of a decision of the Industrial Commission that imposed liability on an employer for workers' compensation benefits. The Court reasoned that the question of ultimate liability is necessarily judicial and that under the open courts provision the employer was entitled to access to the courts to protect its property rights. The Jensens are in a position similar to the employer in Evans and have the right to test the legality of their liability under the ruling of the Tax Commission in a court of law. The requirement that they deposit the full amount of the deficiency assessed by the Commission is, on the facts of this case, an effective bar to judicial review. Thus, to the extent that § 59-1-505 precludes reasonable access to judicial review, it violates the open courts provision and is unconstitutional as applied. We make clear, however, that the statutory requirement is not unconstitutional in all cases. When a taxpayer is able to meet the requirement, the deposit must be paid.