Watson v. State Department of Finance & Administration

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Watson v. State Department of Finance & Administration

675 S.W.2d 368, 283 Ark. 287, 1984 Ark. LEXIS 1812

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedSeptember 24, 1984

Docket84-106

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 675 S.W.2d 368 (Watson v. State Department of Finance & Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Watson v. State Department of Finance & Administration, 675 S.W.2d 368, 283 Ark. 287, 1984 Ark. LEXIS 1812 (Ark. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The appellants refused to submit to an audit of their tax records. The Commissioner of Revenues made estimated determinations of the sales tax and income tax due which appellants contested before the Board of Hearings and Appeals of the Revenue Division of the Department of Finance and Administration. The Board upheld the commissioner’s estimate and appellants did not appeal. The commissioner then filed Certificates of Indebtedness for the delinquent taxes with the circuit clerk. Writs of execution were issued and the sheriff levied upon appellants’ property. The appellants then filed this original suit in circuit court contending that they were entitled to schedule a five hundred dollar personal property exemption under Section 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution of Arkansas. The trial court found the argument to be without merit and refused to schedule an exemption. We affirm. Jurisdiction is in this court under Rule 29 (1) (a).

Section 1 of Article 9 provides a two hundred dollar personal property exemption for persons who are not the head of a family. Section 2 provides a five hundred dollar personal property exemption for persons who are the head of a family. The Section 1 exemption is from process issued by any court “for the collection of any debt by contract.” The similar Section 2 exemption is from process issued “from any court on debt by contract.”

Both exemptions apply to debts incurred as the result of a contract. State v. Williford, 36 Ark. 155 at 160 (1880). They do not apply to a liability created by statute. Buckley v. Williams, 84 Ark. 187, 105 S.W. 95 (1907). The appellants’ debt for delinquent taxes is a liability created by statute. Ark. Stat. Ann. Title 84, Chapters 19 and 20. The debt was not incurred as the result of a contract, either express or implied, thus appellants are not entitled to the claimed exemptions.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Robert H. Dudley, Justice.

The appellants refused to submit to an audit of their tax records. The Commissioner of Revenues made estimated determinations of the sales tax and income tax due which appellants contested before the Board of Hearings and Appeals of the Revenue Division of the Department of Finance and Administration. The Board upheld the commissioner’s estimate and appellants did not appeal. The commissioner then filed Certificates of Indebtedness for the delinquent taxes with the circuit clerk. Writs of execution were issued and the sheriff levied upon appellants’ property. The appellants then filed this original suit in circuit court contending that they were entitled to schedule a five hundred dollar personal property exemption under Section 2 of Article 9 of the Constitution of Arkansas. The trial court found the argument to be without merit and refused to schedule an exemption. We affirm. Jurisdiction is in this court under Rule 29 (1) (a).

Section 1 of Article 9 provides a two hundred dollar personal property exemption for persons who are not the head of a family. Section 2 provides a five hundred dollar personal property exemption for persons who are the head of a family. The Section 1 exemption is from process issued by any court “for the collection of any debt by contract.” The similar Section 2 exemption is from process issued “from any court on debt by contract.”

Both exemptions apply to debts incurred as the result of a contract. State v. Williford, 36 Ark. 155 at 160 (1880). They do not apply to a liability created by statute. Buckley v. Williams, 84 Ark. 187, 105 S.W. 95 (1907). The appellants’ debt for delinquent taxes is a liability created by statute. Ark. Stat. Ann. Title 84, Chapters 19 and 20. The debt was not incurred as the result of a contract, either express or implied, thus appellants are not entitled to the claimed exemptions.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

675 S.W.2d 368, 283 Ark. 287, 1984 Ark. LEXIS 1812, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/watson-v-state-department-of-finance-administration-ark-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack