[Vision2020] Judge Dismisses Rep. Hart's Appeal

[Tom Hansen]

Courtesy of today's (December 9, 2010) Spokesman-Review.

---------------------------------------------------------

Judge dismisses Hart appeal
Opinion calls some arguments unsupported and ‘unthinkable’

An Idaho district court on Wednesday tossed state Rep. Phil Hart’s attempt
to appeal a state Tax Commission order that he pay more than $53,000 in
back state income taxes, including penalties and interest.

In a sharply worded decision, 1st District Judge John Mitchell said part
of Hart’s appeal “lacks any cogent legal argument” and labeled it
“unthinkable” that Hart would call for sanctions against the Tax
Commission’s attorney when it was Hart who failed to file his appeal in a
timely fashion.

Mitchell’s ruling granted the motion to dismiss Hart’s appeal, agreeing
with the state Tax Commission that the court lacks jurisdiction. The Tax
Commission was represented by Deputy Attorney General William von Tagen.
Reached Wednesday by phone, Hart, an Athol Republican recently re-elected
to his fourth term, said he could not comment because he had not seen the
ruling and had not decided whether he would appeal.

The State Board of Tax Appeals previously denied Hart’s appeal, saying it
was not filed in the 91-day period provided by law. Mitchell concurred,
saying, “What is truly remarkable about Hart’s argument is Hart seems
unable to reconcile that it was Hart who disregarded the time limitation
Hart had within which to perfect Hart’s appeal. It was Hart’s decision
alone to fail to timely perfect his own appeal.”

In Hart’s reply to the Tax Commission’s motion to dismiss his appeal,
Hart, represented by attorney Starr Kelso, asserted that the District
Court had jurisdiction to hear the case. Mitchell disagreed, saying
“instead of providing legal argument, Hart makes the following circular,
wholly unsupported claim that this Court simply assume it has
jurisdiction” before going on to cite from the document.

Hart had also argued that his status as a state legislator exempted him
from time limits in filing his appeal. The Board of Tax Appeals had found
that even if his legislative privilege argument was correct, he still
filed too late.

Hart’s reply to the state’s motion contended that sanctions were merited
against the Tax Commission because it misrepresented the decisions in two
state Supreme Court cases, including Smith v. Arizona Citizens Clean
Elections.

Mitchell strongly disagreed, stating that the legislative privilege did
not apply in the Arizona case, just as it clearly did not apply in Hart’s
appeal.

“Hart should know Smith was on point. Hart should know Smith is similar to
Hart’s own case. Hart should know that to argue the contrary is to attempt
to deceive this Court,” Mitchell wrote. “For Hart to take the extra step
and claim the Commission has committed an offense which warrants sanctions

 is unthinkable.”

---------------------------------------------------------

Seeya round town, Moscow.

Tom Hansen
Moscow, Idaho

"The Pessimist complains about the wind, the Optimist expects it to change
and the Realist adjusts his sails."

- Unknown