Tax Comm'n v. Ostler

Annotate this Case
Tax Comm'n v. Ostler IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

State Tax Commission,
Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

Jeffrey Ostler and Jan Baird Ostler,
Defendants and Appellants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)

Case No. 20010977-CA

F I L E D
March 7, 2002 2002 UT App 62 -----

Second District, Farmington Department
The Honorable Rodney S. Page

Attorneys:
Jeffrey Ostler, Layton, Appellant Pro Se
Mark L. Shurtleff and Timothy A. Bodily, Salt Lake City, for Appellee

-----

Before Judges Billings, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

This matter is before the court on motions by each party for summary disposition pursuant to Rule 10 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure. The Tax Commission's motion for summary affirmance "on the basis that the grounds for review are so insubstantial as not to merit further proceedings and consideration by the appellate court" is well taken. Utah R. App. P. 10(a)(2).

The Tax Commission complied with all statutory requirements in filing the tax warrant against the Ostlers. The Ostlers did not challenge the statutory notice of deficiency as required under Utah Code Ann. § 59-1-501 (2000). After the expiration of thirty days for an appeal, the deficiency assessment became final, and the properly filed warrant became a final judgment. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 59-10-525(1)(a), -528(4) (2000). The Ostlers' failure to challenge the assessment before the Tax Commission and to exhaust their administrative remedies bars judicial review of the assessment. See Nebeker v. State Tax Comm'n, 2001 UT 74,¶13, 34 P.3d 180. Accordingly, the district court properly denied the Ostlers' motion to dismiss when they sought to challenge the assessment in the district court.

Because the district court properly denied the Ostlers' motion as lacking any merit under the law, we deny their motion to summarily reverse for manifest error. We grant the Tax Commission's motion for summary affirmance because the Ostlers have presented no substantial question for our review.

Affirmed.
 

______________________________
Judith M. Billings,
Associate Presiding Judge
 

______________________________
Gregory K. Orme, Judge
 

______________________________
William A. Thorne Jr., Judge

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.