Ark. Code Ann. » Title 26 Chapter 18
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 26-18-404 (2026)

Taxpayer relief

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

History. Acts 1979, No. 401, § 19; A.S.A. 1947, § 84-4719; Acts 1997, No. 1139, §§ 2, 3; 1999, No. 1277, §§ 1, 2; 2007, No. 212, § 1.

Case Notes

Applicability.

Because local taxing entities that brought a class-action suit alleging underpayment of gross-receipts taxes were not taxpayers with an administrative remedy, but instead were agencies that could request declaratory relief without first being required to assess the taxes or apply to the state for a declaration, the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies had no application. Hotels.com, L.P. v. Pine Bluff Adver. & Promotion Comm'n, 2013 Ark. 392, 430 S.W.3d 56 (2013).

Appeals.

This chapter requires a particular type of protest in order to initiate the administrative review procedures outlined in this section and § 26-18-405, which involve contesting proposed assessments, while paying the final assessment under protest is required by § 26-18-406(a)(1) in order to preserve the taxpayer's right to judicial review. Hercules, Inc. v. Pledger, 319 Ark. 702, 894 S.W.2d 576 (1995) (decision under prior law).

Due Process.

Collecting interest on taxpayers' delinquent tax obligations did not violate due process because the taxpayers were not denied the ability to contest the interest either administratively or by seeking judicial relief under the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, § 26-18-101 et seq.Sanford v. Walther, 2015 Ark. 285, 467 S.W.3d 139 (2015).

Cited: Ragland v. Alpha Aviation, Inc., 285 Ark. 182, 686 S.W.2d 391 (1985); Ross v. Martin, 800 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1986); Ragland v. General Tire & Rubber Co., 297 Ark. 394, 763 S.W.2d 70 (1989).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1989–2015 · leading case: Baker Refrigeration Sys., Inc. v. Weiss, 201 S.W.3d 900 (Ark. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Baker Refrigeration Sys., Inc. v. Weiss, 201 S.W.3d 900 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 6× “Baker protested the audit, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 26-18-404 (1987). A hearing was held before an administrative law judge (ALJ), pursuant to Ark.”
Hercules Inc. v. Pledger, 894 S.W.2d 576 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 4× “While there is no dispute that Hercules complied with the notice requirements of § 26-18-404 in order to preserve its right for an administrative review of DF&A’s proposed assessments, we cannot agree with Hercules that that notice complied with and preserved its right to a…”
Ragland v. Gen. Tire & Rubber Co., 763 S.W.2d 70 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 2× “In challenging this assessment, General Tire exhausted its administrative remedies as set forth in Ark. Code Ann. § 26-18-404 (1987). Unsuccessful at the administrative level, General Tire filed suit in chancery court.”
State Dept. of Fin. & Admin. v. Staton, 942 S.W.2d 804 (Ark. 1996). “Here, under § 26-18-406, it is clear that the protest is intended to place DF & A on notice that the taxpayer's payment must be deposited into the Protest Fund account.”
Sanford v. Walther, 2015 Ark. 285 (Ark. 2015). “§ 26-18-404. After the issuance of a final assessment of a final deficiency in tax that is not protested by the taxpayer or a final determination of the hearing officer or director, a taxpayer may seek judicial .”
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.