Opinion ID: 1268867
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Stay of Taxes

Text: The City argues that the superior court erred in permitting the Lutherans and Methodists a stay of payment of taxes during the appeal of this case. [11] The Lutherans and Methodists received a stay of the City's tax assessment for each of the four disputed tax years during the appeal of their case to the superior court. In return, they filed a supersedeas bond with the court for the principal amount of taxes due, excluding costs and interest. After the superior court issued a final judgment, it continued the stay during the appeal to the supreme court. Again, this was in exchange for a supersedeas bond. The City argues that both AS 29.53.390(a) and public policy require the payment of taxes under protest before any taxpayer may appeal an assessment. Even were a stay appropriate, the City claims that the court erred by failing to require that appellants' bond include costs and interest. Our resolution of these issues is advisory only since this judgment terminates all pending stay orders in this case. We address them because of the public interest involved and the probability that they will continually evade review. See, e.g., Doe v. State, 487 P.2d 47, 53 (Alaska 1971). Appellate Rule 603(2) governs the stay of an administrative agency's order while on appeal before the superior court. [12] Pipeliners Union 798 v. Alaska State Commission for Human Rights, 681 P.2d 330, 334 n. 8 (Alaska 1984). Because the City acted as an administrative agency in deciding the tax exemptions, [13] Rule 603(2) applies here. [14] Rule 603(2) allows a mandatory stay of appeals pending before the superior court by filing a sufficient and timely supersedeas bond. Id. at 335 n. 11. Rule 603(2) provides explicitly that the bond be conditioned for the full satisfaction of the appealed judgment, including interest and costs. Here, the supersedeas bonds were only for the principal amount of the taxes assessed, excluding interest and costs. Thus, the superior court improperly stayed the payment of taxes during its review. Appellate Rule 204(d) [15] authorizes the superior court to stay certain judgments on appeal to the supreme court. [16] Rule 204(d) allows the superior court discretion to set the security required for a stay. Here, the superior court properly stayed its judgment pending this appeal.