Ark. Code Ann. » Title 26 Chapter 35
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 (2026)

Mailing tax statements

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

History. Acts 1929, No. 40, § 4; 1931, No. 324, § 5; 1941, No. 24, § 1; 1941, No. 115, § 1; 1957, No. 363, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 84-918; Acts 1989, No. 372, § 1; 1993, No. 791, § 1; 2013, No. 27, § 1.

Amendments. The 2013 amendment added (b) and (c).

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Note, Constitutional & Property Law — Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause & Notice to Be Heard — It Felt So Right But Was All So Wrong: United States Supreme Court Rules Arkansas's Tax-Foreclosure Notice Procedure Fails to Satisfy Due Process Clause When Certified Mail Notice Returns “Unclaimed” (Jones v. Flowers, 126 S. Ct. 1708 (2006)), 30 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 179.

Case Notes

Notice.

Tax forfeiture sale of the real property of a nonresident landowner was approved because the landowner moved its corporate office from Illinois to California and did not notify the Commissioner of State Lands of the change of address as required; thus, when the Commissioner mailed the landowner notice of the delinquency and notice of the tax forfeiture sale to the landowner's old address, and published notice in newspapers, the Commissioner performed all the acts that it was required to perform. Tsann Kuen Enters. Co. v. Campbell, 355 Ark. 110, 129 S.W.3d 822 (2003).

The Commissioner of State Lands provided adequate notice to a prior owner of a tax deficiency and tax sale as required by § 26-37-301 where there was some confusion at the county level as to the last known address, the commissioner mailed the notice to the address certified by the county, and the former owner had not furnished its correct address as required by this section. Mays v. St. Pat Props., LLC, 357 Ark. 482, 182 S.W.3d 84, cert. denied, 543 U.S. 943, 125 S. Ct. 353, 160 L. Ed. 2d 255 (2004).

Although this section provided strong support for the argument by the Commissioner of State Lands that mailing a certified letter to a property owner at the property's address was reasonable, it did not alter the reasonableness of the Commissioner's position that he was not required to do more when the notice was promptly returned “unclaimed.” Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 126 S. Ct. 1708, 164 L. Ed. 2d 415 (2006).

Cited: Jones v. Flowers, 359 Ark. 443, 198 S.W.3d 520 (2004).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (2006). · cites it 10× “The Arkansas statutory scheme is reasonably calculated to provide notice, the Commissioner continues, because it provides for notice by certified mail to an address that the property owner is responsible for keeping up to date.”
Tsann Kuen Enter. Co. v. Campbell, 129 S.W.3d 822 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 4× “Tsann Kuen argues that, in the present case, the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards can be demonstrated because if the tax collector had posted notice on the property or mailed notice to the physical address of the property, then the caretaker…”
Anthony Brown v. Hannah Towell, in Her Off. Capacity as the Craighead Cnty. Tax Assessor & Wes Eddington, in His Off. Capacity as the Craighead Cnty. Tax Collector, 2021 Ark. 60 (Ark. 2021). · cites it 2× “Further, Towell and Eddington respond that Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 also requires that the taxpayer furnish the correct mailing address for tax statements.”
Jones v. Flowers, 198 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 4× “In so doing, this court recognized that while Tsann had an interest in the property sold, the court also had to consider the State’s interest and whether additional procedural safeguards would be unduly burdensome to the State.”
Caplash v. Johnson, 230 F. Supp. 3d 128 (W.D.N.Y. 2017). “1708 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 (“In the event that the mailing address or electronic address information of the taxpayer changes, the taxpayer has an obligation to furnish the correct mailing address or electronic address information.”
Mays v. St. Pat Props., LLC, 182 S.W.3d 84 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 3× “Under Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 , appellant had “the obligation to furnish the correct address,” and apparently, appellant failed to meet that obligation.”
Tommy Land,in His Capacity as Comm'r of State Lands for the State of Arkansas v. Bas, LLC; Parcel Strategies, LLC; & Banyan Capital Investments, LLC, 2025 Ark. 107 (Ark. 2025). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 . After BAS failed to pay its property taxes in 2017 and 2018, the Greene County Clerk certified the property to the Commissioner of State Lands for nonpayment.”
United States v. Leopoldo Rivera-Valdes (9th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2× “(“Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 provides strong support for the Commissioner’s argument that mailing a certified letter to Jones at 717 North Bryan Street was reasonably calculated to reach him.”
Bert Dickey IV & Lulynne Hicky v. Gary Lillard, Brenda Lillard, & Tommy Land, Comm'r of State Lands, 2020 Ark. App. 447 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 26-35-705 (c) (Supp. 2019).”
In Re Paro, 362 B.R. 419 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2007). · cites it 2× “However, the State is required to send only one notice to the record owner at the record owner's last known address, and the owner is charged with keeping a correct address on file with the tax collector under Ark.Code Ann. § 26-35-705. See generally Mays v.”
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.