Opinion ID: 1118224
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Jeopardy Assessment

Text: The Jensens argue for the first time on appeal that the Commission's confiscation of their property under a jeopardy assessment was a violation of due process because of the lack of notice. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 59-10-528(3) (1987), if the Commission finds that the collection of the tax or other amount is in jeopardy, it may make a notice of demand for immediate payment and, upon refusal to pay, issue a warrant to the sheriff. The warrant, when filed with the appropriate county clerk, becomes a judgment on which the sheriff may execute. § 59-10-528(4), (6). Whether the Commission made the requisite finding that the collection of tax from the Jensens was in jeopardy and whether the judgment was properly executed are not part of the record because the issue was not raised below. Questions not raised in an administrative tribunal are generally not subject to judicial review. Alvin G. Rhodes Pump Sales v. Industrial Comm'n, 681 P.2d 1244, 1249 (Utah 1984). Although we occasionally will depart from strict application of this rule for pro se litigants, we do not do so here because the Jensens' assertion that the Commission's jeopardy assessment violated due process was not supported by any attempt to outline the underlying facts and was without analysis or authority. We cannot rule in the dark on such an issue. See A.P. Winter v. Northwest Pipeline Corp., 820 P.2d 916, 919 (Utah 1991). The argument is therefore rejected as untimely. Reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings. HALL, C.J., HOWE, Associate C.J., and DURHAM and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.