O.C.G.A.

50-13A-3 (2019)

Application of definitions within Code Section 48-1-2; ‘‘tribunal’’ defined

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Except where the context may otherwise clearly require, all terms used in this chapter shall have the meaning given such term by Code Section 48-1-2. As used in this chapter, the term ‘‘tribunal’’ means the Georgia Tax Tribunal established by Code Section 50-13A-4 which shall be an independent and autonomous division within the Office of State Administrative Hearings operating under the sole direction of the chief tribunal judge.

History

Code 1981, § 50-13A-3, enacted by Ga. L. 2012, p. 318, § 15/HB 100.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Appeal procedure. - Trial court properly dismissed a tobacco retailer’s appeal of a decision of the Georgia Tax Tribunal that the retailer owed unpaid taxes as the general intention behind the creation of the Tribunal did not permit the court to ignore the plain language of

O.C.G.A. § 48-11-18 concerning the designated appellate forum available to tobacco tax payers. Moosa Co. LLC v. Dep’t of Revenue, 353 Ga. App. 429, 838 S.E.2d 108 (2020), cert. denied, No. S20C0816, 2020 Ga. LEXIS 679 (Ga. 2020).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2020–2022 · leading case: Moosa Co., LLC v. Comm'r of the Georgia Dep't of Revenue (Ga. Ct. App. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Moosa Co., LLC v. Comm'r of the Georgia Dep't of Revenue (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 50-13A-3. 3 In three related enumerations of error, Moosa contends that the trial court’s finding that the Tribunal lacks subject matter jurisdiction over its appeal results from the trial court’s exercise of flawed statutory construction.”

T-Mobile South, LLC v. Robyn A. Crittenden, in Her Off. Capacity as Comm'r of the Georgia Dep't of Revenue (Ga. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “” OCGA § 50-13A-3. See also OCGA § 50-13A-5 (a) (“The [Tax Tribunal ruled that T-Mobile was entitled to the high-technology exemption from sales tax provided by OCGA § 48-8-3 (68) (the “High-Tech exemption”) for its purchases of certain equipment for tax years 2012 through 2016.”

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.