Vt. Stat. Ann. » Title 32 Chapter 151
Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 5887 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 008 : DEFICIENCIES, ASSESSMENTS, REFUNDS, AND APPEALS

(Cite as: 32 V.S.A. § 5887)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: Stone v. Errecart, 675 A.2d 1322 (Vt. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Stone v. Errecart, 675 A.2d 1322 (Vt. 1996). · cites it 3× “2d 631 (1974), holding that a land gains taxpayer must follow the administrative appeal route as a prerequisite to judicial review: [T]he Legislature has made its purpose abundantly clear by defining this statutory route as the “exclusive remedy” in 32 V.”
Town of Bridgewater v. Dep't of Taxes, 787 A.2d 1234 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 2× “2d 1322 (1996), which held that 32 V.S.A. § 5887 outlines the exclusive procedure to pursue a refund for certain taxes.”
Northfield Sch. Bd. v. Washington South Educ. Ass'n & Paul Clayton, 210 A.3d 460 (Vt. 2019). “Therefore, we conclude that "action" under § 1752 encompasses both judicial proceedings and proceedings under CBAs, including grievance-and-arbitration proceedings. Compliance with the pre-termination appeal procedures is a condition that must be met in order to be eligible to…”
Vermont Soc'y of Ass'n Executives v. Milne, 779 A.2d 20 (Vt. 2001). · cites it 2× “2d 1322, 1326 (1996), in which this Court stated: We hold that 32 V.S.A. § 5887 requires that a taxpayer petition for a refund from the Commissioner pursuant to 32 V.”
State of Vermont, Dep't of Taxes v. Kenneth C. Montani/Thomas A. Tatro/Tyre Duvernay/Thomas L. Marchant, 184 A.3d 723 (Vt. 2018). “32 V.S.A. § 5887(b). The title of § 5887 -"Remedy exclusive; determination final"-could not make this more clear.”
State v. Okie (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “If so, plaintiff will be entitled to the requested judgment.”
Dept. of Taxes v. Giannoni (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “The Court is aware that when a taxpayer fails to make use of the available appeal process after receiving a notice of deficiency, “[t]he taxpayer shall not thereafter contest, either directly or indirectly, the tax liability as therein set forth, in any proceeding.”
Riley v. State, 329 A.2d 631 (Vt. 1974). “That chapter sets out the line of review of such questions culminating in a final administrative determination by the Commissioner of Taxes. An appeal from the decision lies with the superior court.”
Dep't of Taxes v. Morrison (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). “32 V.S.A. § 5887(a), (b). The Vermont Supreme Court has determined as a matter of law that a taxpayer is not entitled to have this Court do a new review of the facts and determine tax liability.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 5887(a) — 2 cases
Stone v. Errecart, 675 A.2d 1322 (Vt. 1996). “2d 631 (1974), holding that a land gains taxpayer must follow the administrative appeal route as a prerequisite to judicial review: [T]he Legislature has made its purpose abundantly clear by defining this statutory route as the “exclusive remedy” in 32 V.”
Dep't of Taxes v. Morrison (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). “32 V.S.A. § 5887(a), (b). The Vermont Supreme Court has determined as a matter of law that a taxpayer is not entitled to have this Court do a new review of the facts and determine tax liability.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 32, § 5887(b) — 3 cases
State of Vermont, Dep't of Taxes v. Kenneth C. Montani/Thomas A. Tatro/Tyre Duvernay/Thomas L. Marchant, 184 A.3d 723 (Vt. 2018). “32 V.S.A. § 5887(b). The title of § 5887 -"Remedy exclusive; determination final"-could not make this more clear.”
Dept. of Taxes v. Giannoni (Vt. Super. Ct. 2016). “The Court is aware that when a taxpayer fails to make use of the available appeal process after receiving a notice of deficiency, “[t]he taxpayer shall not thereafter contest, either directly or indirectly, the tax liability as therein set forth, in any proceeding.”
State v. Okie (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “If so, plaintiff will be entitled to the requested judgment.”
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.