Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (2026)
Judicial review of Board of Tax Appeals' findings and order; petition; surety bond; payment under protest in lieu of bond; payment of uncontested tax by taxpayer; payment of uncontested overpayment by agency; issuance of summons; trial; appeals of chancery court order to Supreme Court
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) The findings and order of the Board of Tax Appeals entered under Section 27-77-5 shall be final unless the agency or the taxpayer shall, within sixty (60) days from the date the Board of Tax Appeals mailed the order, file a petition in the chancery court appealing the order. If the petition under this subsection is filed by the taxpayer, the petition shall be filed against the Department of Revenue as respondent. If the petition under this subsection is filed by the agency, the petition shall be filed against the taxpayer as respondent. The petition shall contain a concise statement of the facts as contended by the petitioner, identify the order from which the appeal is being taken and set out the type of relief sought. If in the action, the taxpayer is seeking a refund or credit for an alleged overpayment of any tax other than individual or corporate income tax or franchise tax, the taxpayer shall allege in the petition or in his answer, where the appeal is filed by the agency, that he alone bore the burden of the tax sought to be refunded or credited and did not directly or indirectly collect the tax from anyone else; however, this requirement shall not apply in any case involving a claim for incentives based on payroll withholding or other incentives, rebates or other economic benefits the computation of which is based, in whole or in part, upon taxes withheld or paid. The respondent to the petition has thirty (30) days from the date of service of the petition to file a cross-appeal.
- (2) A petition under subsection (1) of this section shall be filed in the chancery court of the county or judicial district in which the taxpayer has a place of business or in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi; however, a resident taxpayer may file the petition in the chancery court of the county or judicial district in which he is a resident. If both the agency and the taxpayer file a petition under subsection (1) of this section, the appeals shall be consolidated and the chancery court where the taxpayer filed his petition shall have jurisdiction over the consolidated appeal.
- (3) Unless otherwise ordered by the chancery court upon motion by the agency, no taxpayer appealing an order of the Board of Tax Appeals under this section shall be required to post security or a bond, or otherwise pay to the agency, under protest or otherwise, any contested taxes, interest, penalties or other amounts. After a petition or cross-appeal is filed by a taxpayer under this section, if the agency believes that its ability to obtain payment from the taxpayer of the taxes, penalties and interest in issue is jeopardized by its inability to proceed with collection due to the filing of the appeal or cross-appeal by the taxpayer or if the agency believes that the appeal or cross-appeal is being brought to delay payment of the taxes, penalties or interest in issue, the agency may move the chancery court to require the taxpayer to post a bond or other adequate security for the payment of any judgment of the court. Upon consideration of such motion, after notice and hearing, the chancellor shall determine whether a bond or other security is needed to protect the interest of the state in regard to the timely payment of the taxes, penalties and interest in issue. If the chancellor determines that a bond or other security is necessary to protect the interest of the state, the chancellor shall provide the taxpayer sixty (60) days from the date that he enters an order on the motion to post with the clerk of the court the bond or other security that the chancellor determines is needed to protect the state's interest. To avoid the accruing of additional penalty and interest while an appeal is pending, a taxpayer appealing an order of the Board of Tax Appeals affirming a tax assessment may, prior to the filing of the petition, pay to the agency, under protest, the amount ordered by the Board of Tax Appeals to be paid and seek a refund of such taxes, plus interest thereon, in the appeal. The taxpayer shall pay to the agency any tax included in the assessment which he is not contesting. If the petition initiating the appeal is filed by the taxpayer, the payment of the uncontested tax shall be made prior to the expiration of the sixty-day time period for filing a petition under subsection (1) of this section or the commissioner may institute collection proceedings for such uncontested amount. If the petition initiating the appeal is filed by the agency, the payment of the uncontested tax shall be made prior to the expiration of the sixty-day time period for the filing of the petition. Failure of the taxpayer to timely pay the uncontested tax shall not bar the taxpayer from obtaining a reduction, abatement and/or refund of any contested tax in the appeal and shall not result in the taxpayer's appeal or cross-appeal being dismissed or delayed or judgment being entered granting the agency the relief it requested.
- (4) In an action under this section resulting from an order of the Board of Tax Appeals involving a refund claim denial, the agency shall refund or credit to the taxpayer, as provided by law, the amount of any overpayment included in the refund claim which the agency does not contest. If the petition initiating the appeal is filed by the agency, the uncontested overpayment shall be paid or credited to the taxpayer prior to the expiration of the sixty-day time period for filing a petition under subsection (1) of this section. If the petition initiating the appeal is filed by the taxpayer, such uncontested overpayment shall be paid or credited to the taxpayer prior to the expiration of the thirty-day time period for the filing of an answer or other response to the petition as provided in subsection (5) of this section. Failure of the agency to timely pay or credit the uncontested overpayment to the taxpayer shall bar the agency from obtaining an affirmation, in whole or in part, of the refund claim denial in issue until the payment or claim is made, but shall not result in the agency's appeal or cross-appeal being dismissed or judgment being entered granting the taxpayer the relief he requested.
- (5) Upon the filing of the petition under subsection (1) of this section, the clerk of the court shall issue a summons to the respondent requiring the respondent to answer or otherwise respond to the petition within thirty (30) days of service. Where the agency is the respondent, the summons shall be served on the agency by personal service on the commissioner as the chief executive officer of the agency. The chancery court in which a petition under subsection (1) of this section is properly filed shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine the cause or issues joined as in other cases. In any petition, cross-appeal or answer in which the taxpayer is seeking a refund or credit for an alleged overpayment of any tax other than individual or corporate income tax or franchise tax the taxpayer shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he alone bore the burden of the tax sought to be refunded or credited and did not directly or indirectly collect the tax from anyone else; however, this requirement shall not apply in any case involving a claim for incentives based on withholding taxes or other incentives, rebates or other economic benefits the computation of which is based, in whole or in part, upon taxes withheld or paid. At trial of any action brought under this section, the chancery court shall give no deference to the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals, the Board of Review or the Department of Revenue, but shall give deference to the department's interpretation and application of the statutes as reflected in duly enacted regulations and other officially adopted publications. The chancery court shall try the case de novo and conduct a full evidentiary judicial hearing on all factual and legal issues raised by the taxpayer which address the substantive or procedural propriety of the actions of the Department of Revenue being appealed. The chancery court is expressly prohibited from trying any action filed pursuant to this section using the more limited standard of review specified for appeals in Section 27-77-13 of this chapter. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the chancery court shall determine whether the party bringing the appeal has proven by a preponderance of the evidence or a higher standard if required by the issues raised, that he is entitled to any or all of the relief he has requested. The chancery court shall decide all factual and legal questions presented, including those as to legality and the amount of tax, refund, tax credit or tax incentive due as well as whether and to what extent the imposition of interest and/or penalties are warranted under the facts of the case, and if it finds that the tax assessment, denial of the claim for a tax refund, tax credit or tax incentive or other action of the agency in issue is incorrect or invalid, in whole or in part, it shall determine the amount of tax or refund due, including interest and, if applicable, penalty to date, and enter such order or judgment as it deems proper. Interest and penalty included in this determination shall be computed by the court based on the methods for computing penalty and interest as specified by law for the type of tax in issue, and the court shall have the same discretion as the commissioner in determining whether and to what extent such amounts are warranted under the facts of the case. When the chancery court determines that an overpayment exists, the determination as to whether such overpayment shall be refunded to the taxpayer or credited against the taxpayer's future taxes shall be made by the chancery court based on the method for handling overpayments as specified by the law for the type of tax in issue. Either the agency or the taxpayer, or both, shall have the right to appeal from the order of the chancery court to the Supreme Court as in other cases. If an appeal is taken from the order of the chancery court, any bond or other security required to be posted by order of the chancery court shall continue to remain in place until a final decision is rendered in the case.
Laws, 2005, ch. 499, § 4; Laws, 2009, ch. 492, § 115, eff. 7/1/2010.
Amended by Laws, 2014, ch. 476, HB 799, 17, eff. 1/1/2015.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 51
cases (11 in the last 5 years), 2006–2025 · leading case: Equifax, Inc. v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 125 So. 3d 36 (Miss. 2013).
Equifax, Inc. v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 125 So. 3d 36 (Miss. 2013). “On June 1, 2009, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 27-77-7 (Rev. 2008), Equifax appealed the assessment to the Hinds County Chancery Court.”
Khurana v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 85 So. 3d 851 (Miss. 2012). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (2005) (emphasis added).”
Akins v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 70 So. 3d 204 (Miss. 2011). “Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (Rev.2005). The Commission argued that, because Akins had failed to perfect his appeal, the appeal should be dismissed.”
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., 131 So. 3d 1192 (Miss. 2014). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (Rev.2010). Both parties moved for summary judgment.”
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. Hotel & Restaurant Supply, 192 So. 3d 942 (Miss. 2016). “MDOR, as the aggrieved party, then appealed to the Hinds County Chancery Court pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 27-77-7. Hotel filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, a motion for a declaratory judgment, to which MDOR responded and filed its own motion…”
Marlena Robinson v. Ed Morgan, 214 So. 3d 188 (Miss. 2017). “And, while the Legislature has eliminated the bond or payment requirement, the saving clause in House Bill 799 leaves Robinson subject to the pre-amendment version of the statute.”
5K Farms, Inc. v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 94 So. 3d 221 (Miss. 2012). “Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (1) and (3) (Rev.”
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. AT & T Corp., 101 So. 3d 1139 (Miss. 2012). “Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (3) (2005) (emphasis added).”
Fore v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 90 So. 3d 572 (Miss. 2012). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (5) (Rev. 2010).”
Fishbelt Feeds, Inc. v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 158 So. 3d 984 (Miss. 2014). “]” Miss.Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (Rev. 2010). “[W]hen determining the most reasonable and appropriate interpretation of a statute, ‘the agency’s interpretation is an important factor that usually warrants strong consideration.”
Southside, Inc. v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue Ex Rel. Morgan, 158 So. 3d 277 (Miss. 2014). “Miss.Code Ann. § 27-77-7. 9 . Wimley v. Reid, 991 So.”
L Harris Constr. Co. v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue (In re L Harris Constr. Co.), 528 B.R. 664 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2015). “” 10 The BTA Order states that L Harris had sixty (60) days from the date of the order to pay the assessment in full or to file a petition in chancery court requesting a hearing pursuant to Miss. Code § 27-77-7. The sixty (60) days ran on or about August 4, 2013.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7(1) — 13 cases
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. AT & T Corp., 101 So. 3d 1139 (Miss. 2012). “Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (3) (2005) (emphasis added).”
Khurana v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 85 So. 3d 851 (Miss. 2012). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (2005) (emphasis added).”
Bankston v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 95 So. 3d 1275 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. Mississippi Power Co., 144 So. 3d 155 (Miss. 2014).
Fishbelt Feeds, Inc. v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 158 So. 3d 984 (Miss. 2014). “]” Miss.Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (Rev. 2010). “[W]hen determining the most reasonable and appropriate interpretation of a statute, ‘the agency’s interpretation is an important factor that usually warrants strong consideration.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7(2) — 1 case
Linda T. McCoy v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue & Mississippi Bd. of Tax Appeals (Miss. Ct. App. 2023).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7(3) — 11 cases
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. Isle of Capri Casinos, Inc., 131 So. 3d 1192 (Miss. 2014). “See Miss.Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (Rev.2010). Both parties moved for summary judgment.”
Khurana v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 85 So. 3d 851 (Miss. 2012). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (2005) (emphasis added).”
Virk v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 133 So. 3d 809 (Miss. 2014).
Buffington v. Mississippi State Tax Comm'n, 43 So. 3d 450 (Miss. 2010).
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. AT & T Corp., 101 So. 3d 1139 (Miss. 2012). “Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (3) (2005) (emphasis added).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7(4) — 13 cases
Equifax, Inc. v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 125 So. 3d 36 (Miss. 2013). “On June 1, 2009, pursuant to Mississippi Code Annotated section 27-77-7 (Rev. 2008), Equifax appealed the assessment to the Hinds County Chancery Court.”
Fore v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 90 So. 3d 572 (Miss. 2012). “See Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (5) (Rev. 2010).”
In Re Tax Assessment of Foster Found.'s Woodlands Ret. Cmty., 672 S.E.2d 150 (W. Va. 2009).
Khurana v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 85 So. 3d 851 (Miss. 2012). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (2005) (emphasis added).”
Pursue Energy Corp. v. MS. STATE TAX COM'N, 968 So. 2d 368 (Miss. 2007).
— Miss. Code Ann. § 27-77-7(5) — 16 cases
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. Hotel & Restaurant Supply, 192 So. 3d 942 (Miss. 2016). “MDOR, as the aggrieved party, then appealed to the Hinds County Chancery Court pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 27-77-7. Hotel filed a motion for summary judgment, or in the alternative, a motion for a declaratory judgment, to which MDOR responded and filed its own motion…”
Fishbelt Feeds, Inc. v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 158 So. 3d 984 (Miss. 2014). “]” Miss.Code Ann. § 27-77-7 (Rev. 2010). “[W]hen determining the most reasonable and appropriate interpretation of a statute, ‘the agency’s interpretation is an important factor that usually warrants strong consideration.”
Vickie Kansler v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue, 263 So. 3d 641 (Miss. 2018).
HWCC-Tunica, Inc./HWCC-Tunica, LLC & BSL, Inc./BSLO, LLC v. Mississippi Dep't of Revenue & Mississippi Gaming Comm'n (Miss. 2020).
Mississippi Dep't of Revenue v. Comcast of Georgia/Virginia, Inc. n/k/a Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC (Miss. 2020).
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.