Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Tax Appeal of Travelocity.Com, LP

Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii

June 7, 2013

IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX APPEAL OF TRAVELOCITY.COM, LP, Taxpayer-Appellant, and consolidated cases

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAII REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

APPEAL FROM THE TAX APPEAL COURT STATE OF HAWAI'I (T.A. NOS. 11-1-0021; 11-1-0022; 11-1-0023; 11-1-0026; 11-1-0027; 11-1-0029; 11-1-0030; 11-1-0031; 11-1-0032; 11-1-0033; 12-1-0287; 12-1-0288; 12-1-0289; 12-1-0292; 12-1-0293; 12-1-0294; 12-1-0295; 12-1-0297; 12-1-0299; and 12-1-0300)

Nakamura, Chief Judge, Foley and Fujise, JJ.

ORDER (1) DISMISSING APPEAL FOR LACK OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT ANY AND ALL PENDING MOTIONS IN APPELLATE COURT CASE NUMBER CAAP-13-Q000146

Upon review of the record, it appears Respondent-Appellant Director of Taxation, State of Hawai'i (Appellant Director of Taxation), appeals from the following three February 8, 2013 interlocutory orders entered by the tax appeal court in the consolidated tax appeal cases in Tax Appeal No. 11-1-0021:

(1) Order Denying Director of taxation, State of Hawaii's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Filed August 31, 2012;
(2) Order Granting Appellants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Transient Accommodations Tax Assessments, Filed August 31, 2012; and
(3) Order Denying Director of Taxation, State of Hawaii's Motion for Reconsideration, Filed November 7, 2 012.

As explained below, the court lacks jurisdiction because the tax appeal court has not yet entered its final decision in the consolidated tax appeal cases.

HRS § 232-19 (Supp. 2012) authorizes an aggrieved party to appeal to this court from a tax appeal court's "decision":

Any taxpayer or county aggrieved or the assessor may appeal to the intermediate appellate court, subject to chapter 602, from the decision of the tax appeal court by filing a written notice of appeal with the tax appeal court and depositing therewith the costs of appeal within thirty days after the filing of the decision. The appeal shall be considered and treated for all purposes as a general appeal and shall bring up for determination all questions of fact and all questions of law, including constitutional questions, involved in the appeal. A notice of appeal may be amended at any time up to the final determination of the tax liability by the last court from which an appeal may be taken. The appellate court shall enter a judgment in conformity with its opinion or decision.
All such appeals shall be speedily disposed of and, in the hearing and disposition thereof, shall be given preference over other litigation in the discretion of the court.

(Emphasis added). Although HRS § 641-1(a) (1993 & Supp. 2012) and Rule 58 of the Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) require a circuit court to reduce all dispositive orders in a civil case to a separate judgment to perfect an aggrieved party's right to assert an appeal, Jenkins v. Cades Schutte Fleming & Wright, 76 Hawai'i 115, 119, 869 P.2d 1334, 1338 (1994) (Jenkins), the separate judgment rule does not apply to appeals from the tax appeal court, Alford v. City & County of Honolulu, 109 Hawai'i 14, 21-22, 122 P.3d 809, 816-17 (2005) (Alford); Lewis v. Kawafuchi, 108 Hawai'i 69, 73, 116 P.3d 711, 715 (App. 2005). Nonetheless, "consistent with the general rule of finality governing appeals, the appealable ''decision of the tax appeal court, ' HRS § 232-19, should be the decision that finally decides all issues in the tax appeal." Alford, 109 Hawai'i at 22, 122 P.3d at 817 (emphasiss added). Consequently, in an appeal from consolidated tax appeal cases, the tax appeal court must finally decide all issues in each consolidated case before any party may obtain appellate review of any tax appeal court decision. Id. at 23, 122 P.3d at 818. In circumstances where, as here, the separate judgment rule in HRCP Rule 58 and holding in Jenkins are inapplicable, the Hawai'i Supreme Court explained that,

where the disposition of the case is embodied in several orders, no one of which embraces the entire controversy but collectively does so, it is a necessary inference from [HRCP] 54(b) that the orders collectively constitute a final judgment and . . . entry of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.