Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 23.20.220 (2026)
Appeals
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 23.20.220. Appeals.
(a) When a notice of assessment is delivered or mailed to a delinquent employer, the employer may within 30 days file an appeal in writing with the department, stating that the assessment is unjust or incorrect and requesting a hearing on it. The period for filing an appeal may be extended for a reasonable period for good cause. The appeal must set out the reasons the assessment is objected to and the amount of contributions that the employer admits is due, and must be accompanied by a bond or deposit of other security in the amount of the assessment to ensure collection. The department may waive the security requirement if the employer submits proof of solvency or reasonable assurance, as prescribed by regulations, that the contributions, interest, and penalties due are not in jeopardy. If the employer fails to provide the required security, the collection under AS 23.20.205(c) is not stayed. The department shall adopt regulations for procedures for an appeal under this subsection.
(b) If the appeal is accompanied by the required security or the department has waived the security requirement, filing an appeal on a disputed assessment with the department stays the sale provided for in AS 23.20.210 until a final decision on the assessment is made. However, the filing of an appeal does not affect the right of the department to perfect a lien as provided in AS 23.20.200.
(c) After granting the appellant reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, the department shall make a decision on the appeal. The department's decision is final unless the appellant initiates a proceeding for judicial review in the manner provided by AS 23.20.445.
(d) When an order and notice of assessment becomes final, the superior court shall upon application of the department enter a judgment on the amount provided for in the order and notice of assessment. The judgment has the same effect as a judgment entered in a civil action.
(a) When a notice of assessment is delivered or mailed to a delinquent employer, the employer may within 30 days file an appeal in writing with the department, stating that the assessment is unjust or incorrect and requesting a hearing on it. The period for filing an appeal may be extended for a reasonable period for good cause. The appeal must set out the reasons the assessment is objected to and the amount of contributions that the employer admits is due, and must be accompanied by a bond or deposit of other security in the amount of the assessment to ensure collection. The department may waive the security requirement if the employer submits proof of solvency or reasonable assurance, as prescribed by regulations, that the contributions, interest, and penalties due are not in jeopardy. If the employer fails to provide the required security, the collection under AS 23.20.205(c) is not stayed. The department shall adopt regulations for procedures for an appeal under this subsection.
(b) If the appeal is accompanied by the required security or the department has waived the security requirement, filing an appeal on a disputed assessment with the department stays the sale provided for in AS 23.20.210 until a final decision on the assessment is made. However, the filing of an appeal does not affect the right of the department to perfect a lien as provided in AS 23.20.200.
(c) After granting the appellant reasonable opportunity for fair hearing, the department shall make a decision on the appeal. The department's decision is final unless the appellant initiates a proceeding for judicial review in the manner provided by AS 23.20.445.
(d) When an order and notice of assessment becomes final, the superior court shall upon application of the department enter a judgment on the amount provided for in the order and notice of assessment. The judgment has the same effect as a judgment entered in a civil action.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1987–2006 · leading case: Dougan v. Aurora Elec. Inc., 50 P.3d 789 (Alaska 2002).
Dougan v. Aurora Elec. Inc., 50 P.3d 789 (Alaska 2002). “Therefore, we reverse the superior court's remand of the compensation rate adjustment and hold that the Gilmore test is no longer necessary when the board's initial determination of compensation is based on the amended version of AS 23.20.220. v. CONCLUSION Because substantial…”
Circle De Lumber Co. v. Humphrey, 130 P.3d 941 (Alaska 2006). “1 (quoting former AS 23.20.220(a)(2)). 36 . Humphrey II, AWCB Decision No.”
Hartung v. State, Dep't of Labor, 22 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001). “Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the superior court which upheld the department's assessment against Hartung.”
Phillips v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 740 P.2d 457 (Alaska 1987). “” AS 23.20.220(3) repealed by ch. 70, § 12, SLA 1983.”
Flowline of Alaska v. Brennan, 129 P.3d 881 (Alaska 2006). “10 Dougan held that the Gilmore test is no longer necessary when the Board’s initial determination is based on the amended version of AS 23.20.220. 11 As a matter of law, the Board was correct in its application of AS 23.”
— Alaska Stat. § 23.20.220(3) — 1 case
Phillips v. Nabors Alaska Drilling, Inc., 740 P.2d 457 (Alaska 1987). “” AS 23.20.220(3) repealed by ch. 70, § 12, SLA 1983.”
— Alaska Stat. § 23.20.220(a)(2) — 1 case
Circle De Lumber Co. v. Humphrey, 130 P.3d 941 (Alaska 2006). “1 (quoting former AS 23.20.220(a)(2)). 36 . Humphrey II, AWCB Decision No.”
— Alaska Stat. § 23.20.220(a)(4) — 1 case
Flowline of Alaska v. Brennan, 129 P.3d 881 (Alaska 2006). “10 Dougan held that the Gilmore test is no longer necessary when the Board’s initial determination is based on the amended version of AS 23.20.220. 11 As a matter of law, the Board was correct in its application of AS 23.”
— Alaska Stat. § 23.20.220(a)(4)(A) — 1 case
Flowline of Alaska v. Brennan, 129 P.3d 881 (Alaska 2006). “10 Dougan held that the Gilmore test is no longer necessary when the Board’s initial determination is based on the amended version of AS 23.20.220. 11 As a matter of law, the Board was correct in its application of AS 23.”
— Alaska Stat. § 23.20.220(c) — 1 case
Hartung v. State, Dep't of Labor, 22 P.3d 1 (Alaska 2001). “Accordingly, I would affirm the decision of the superior court which upheld the department's assessment against Hartung.”
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.