Opinion ID: 1085014
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The County and the City

Text: Turning to the County and the City, Jefferson County’s gross-receipts tax is authorized by Ark. Code Ann. § 26-74-212 (Repl. 2008) and is administered and enforced by DFA according to the penalties and procedures set forth in the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act. See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 26-74-214 (Supp. 2009); 26-74-216 (Repl. 2008). The City of North Little Rock’s gross-receipts tax is authorized by Ark. Code Ann. § 26-75-207 (Supp. 2009), and, like the County’s, is administered and enforced by DFA. See Ark. Code Ann. § 26-75214 (Repl. 2008); 26-75-219 (Repl. 2008). While there is indeed an administrative remedy outlined in the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, it provides a remedy solely to a taxpayer seeking administrative relief from a 9 Cite as 2013 Ark. 392 proposed assessment of taxes or from a denial of a claim for refund. See Ark. Code Ann. § 2618-404 (Supp. 2009). “Taxpayer,” as defined by the Act, means: (A) Any person subject to or liable for any state tax; (B) Any person required to file a return, to pay, or to withhold and remit any tax required by the provisions of any state tax law; (C) Any person required to obtain a license or a permit or to keep any records under any state tax law; or (D) Any person who files a return and pays a reported tax without regard to whether he or she was required to file the return. Ark. Code Ann. § 26-18-104(16) (Supp. 2009). In the instant case, the County and the City are the levying authorities of the tax, who seek a declaration of whether their respective tax ordinances apply to the OTCs and encompass their business transactions. As the only administrative remedy pointed to by the OTCs is for taxpayers, it is clear that any request by the County and City to DFA for such a declaration would have been futile because such a remedy was simply not available. This court has recognized that inadequate or futile administrative remedies need not be exhausted before other remedies are pursued. See Cummings v. Big Mac Mobile Homes, Inc., 335 Ark. 216, 980 S.W.2d 550 (1998). To that end, when a plaintiff prays for relief that is clearly not available at the administrative level, exhaustion of other available administrative remedies is not required. See id. Accordingly, no exhaustion of administrative remedies was required by the County and City before filing the instant class action for declaratory judgment. Because the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies had no application to the Commission or the County and City, we decline to address the OTCs’ argument that the Class Representatives’ failure to exhaust rendered them unable to establish the class-action 10 Cite as 2013 Ark. 392 requirements under Ark. R. Civ. P. 23.