Code of Alabama

Ala. Code § 9-13-103 (2026)

Proceedings as to Persons Designing to Engage in Acts Prejudicial to Collection of Taxes, Etc.

✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaAla. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

If the department finds that a person liable for taxes under any provisions of this article designs quickly to depart from the state or to remove his property therefrom, or to conceal himself or his property therein or to do any other act tending to prejudice or to render wholly or partly ineffectual proceedings to collect such tax unless such proceedings are brought without delay, the department shall cause notice of such finding to be given such person together with a demand for an immediate return and immediate payment of such taxes. Thereupon such taxes shall become immediately due and payable. If such person is not in default in making such return or paying any taxes prescribed by this article and furnishes evidence satisfactory to the department under regulations to be prescribed by the department that he will duly return and pay the taxes to which the department’s finding relates, then such tax shall not be payable prior to the time otherwise fixed for payment. If such person fails to appear and make such showing, then the department shall make such assessment final and execution may immediately issue as is provided in this article.

(Acts 1945, No. 169, p. 285, §23.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2015–2017 · leading case: Schillaci v. Gentry (Ex parte Gentry), 238 So. 3d 66 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Schillaci v. Gentry (Ex parte Gentry), 238 So. 3d 66 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “The contours of the harm sufficient to jeopardize a child's emotional, mental, or physical well-being are not set out in the statute, and, because the GVA is the first grandparent-visitation statute of this state to contain an explicit requirement of harm, we have no Alabama…”

Weldon v. Ballow, 200 So. 3d 654 (Ala. Civ. App. 2015). “, § 9-13-103, because, it held, the statute could be constitutionally applied in a narrow category of cases in which a parent had forfeited or lost his or her fundamental parental rights.”

— Ala. Code § 9-13-103(e)(2) — 1 case

Schillaci v. Gentry (Ex parte Gentry), 238 So. 3d 66 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). “The contours of the harm sufficient to jeopardize a child's emotional, mental, or physical well-being are not set out in the statute, and, because the GVA is the first grandparent-visitation statute of this state to contain an explicit requirement of harm, we have no Alabama…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.