§232-13 Hearing de novo; bill of
particulars. The hearing before the tax appeal court shall be a hearing de
novo. Irrespective of which party prevails in proceedings before the state
taxation board of review or any equivalent administrative body established by
county ordinance, the assessment as made by the assessor, or if increased by
the board, or equivalent county administrative body, the assessment as so
increased, shall be deemed prima facie correct. Each party shall have the
right to introduce, or the tax appeal court, of its own motion, may require the
taking of evidence in relation to the subject pending as in the court's
discretion may be deemed proper. The court, in the manner provided in section
232-16, shall determine all questions of fact and all questions of law,
including constitutional questions, involved in the appeal.
The jurisdiction of the tax appeal court shall
be limited to the amount of valuation or taxes, as the case may be, in dispute
as shown on the one hand by the amount claimed by the taxpayer or county and on
the other hand by the amount of the assessment, or if increased by the board,
or equivalent county administrative body, the assessment as so increased.
Assessments for the same year upon other
similar property situated in the State shall be receivable in evidence upon the
hearing.
Upon the application of either the taxpayer,
county, or assessor, the judge of the tax appeal court, upon notice, may allow
and direct a bill of particulars of the claim of either the taxpayer, county,
or assessor to be delivered to the other, and, in case of default, the judge
shall preclude the person defaulting from giving evidence of the part or parts
of the person's affirmative claim of which particulars have not been delivered.
[L 1932 2d, c 40, §46; am L 1933, c 195, §2; RL 1935, §1944; am L 1939, c 208,
§9; RL 1945, §5209; RL 1955, §116-10; am L Sp 1957, c 1, §13(d); am L 1963, c
92, §7; HRS §232-13; gen ch 1985; am L 1986, c 339, §17; am L 1989, c 14, §7;
am L 2021, c 118, §5]
Case Notes
Taxpayer's 42 U.S.C. §1983 claim against validity of Hawaii's
general excise tax barred, where state remedies available to taxpayer were
"plain, adequate, and complete". 940 F. Supp. 260 (1995).
The determination that the board had no authority to increase
the assessment at the request of the State upon an appeal filed by taxpayer was
within the jurisdiction of the tax appeal court to make. 56 H. 229, 533 P.2d
1218 (1975).
"The amount claimed by the taxpayer" is not limited
to amount stated by taxpayer in its notice of appeal but means whatever amount
is supported by evidence presented to tax appeal court, and this section limits
the jurisdiction of tax appeal court to that amount. 81 H. 248, 915 P.2d 1349
(1996).
Notes of Decisions
Tax Found. of Hawaiʻi v. State., 439 P.3d 127 (Haw. 2019).
· cites it 8× “HRS § 232-13 limits the jurisdiction of the tax appeal court to determining " 'the amount of valuation or taxes, as the case may be, in dispute[.”
Tax Appeal of Cnty. of Maui v. KM HAW., 915 P.2d 1349 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 20× “HRS § 232-13 does not prevent the Tax Appeal Court from, lowering an assessment below the valuation stated by the Taxpayer in its notice of appeal.”
In Re the Tax Appeal of Hawaiian Land Co., 487 P.2d 1070 (Haw. 1971).
· cites it 12× “The court reasoned that as HRS § 232-13 (1968) limits its jurisdiction to assessments in dispute, [5] it would acquire jurisdiction over the land value only if such valuation is appealed.”
In re Tax Appeal of Priceline.com, Inc. v. Dir. of Taxation., 436 P.3d 1155 (Haw. 2019).
· cites it 2× “The Director responds that this court has recognized an exception to *1170 the general rule when a taxpayer seeks an exemption from a tax of general applicability, in which case the statute should be interpreted strictly against the taxpayer.”
Tax Appeal of Grace Bus. Dev. Corp. v. Kamikawa, 994 P.2d 591 (Haw. App. 1999).
· cites it 8× “” Relying upon the definition of “dispute” in HRS § 232-13, the State argues that “dispute” for purposes of HRS § 40-35 is the difference between the taxpayer’s computation of taxes due and the amount assessed by the Department.”
In Re the Tax Appeal of Valley of the Temples Corp., 533 P.2d 1218 (Haw. 1975).
· cites it 6× “HRS §§ 232-13, 232-17 (Supp. 1974). HRS § 232-13, limiting the jurisdiction of the Tax Appeal Court to “the amount of valuation or taxes, as the case may be, in dispute as shown on the one hand by the amount clair,ied by the taxpayer or county or on the other hand by the amount…”
Kinkaid v. Bd. of Review of the City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 104 P.3d 905 (Haw. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See HRS § 232-13 (2001). Appellants fail to articulate why the procedural safeguard of de novo review does not, at least in this context, adequately ensure that a taxpayer’s assessment reflects a correct application of law and a reasonable apprisal of the relevant facts.”
In re Tax Appeal of Travelocity.Com., L.P. v. Dir. of Taxation., 346 P.3d 157 (Haw. 2015).
· cites it 2× “Irrespective of which party prevails in proceedings before a state board of review, or any equivalent administrative body established by county ordinance, the assessment as made by the assessor, or if increased by the board, or equivalent county administrative body, the…”
Tax Appeal of Lewis v. Kawafuchi, 116 P.3d 711 (Haw. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “It shall be a court of record; have jurisdiction throughout the State with respect to matters within its jurisdiction; and shall have the power and authority in the manner provided in section 232-13, to decide all questions of fact and all questions of law, including…”
Kauai Hotel, L.P. v. Cnty. of Kaua'i, 915 P.2d 1358 (Haw. 1996).
· cites it 6× “First, we discussed the scope of the Tax Appeal Court’s de novo hearing as follows: [T]he requirement that a proceeding before the Tax Appeal Court be a hearing de novo, pursuant to HRS § 232-13, [was not] a restriction upon the court’s jurisdiction to determine the issue.”
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.