Background
On December 13, 2019, the Hawaii Director of Taxation issued two Notices of Final Assessment of Income Tax to Rickey and Emilou Mikami. The accompanying Hawaii Taxpayer Bill of Rights expressly informed the Mikamis that any appeal to the Tax Appeal Court must be filed within 30 days of the mailing of the final assessment, and that a court-stamped copy of the notice of appeal must also be served on the Director of Taxation within that same 30-day window.
Rather than filing directly with the Tax Appeal Court, the Mikamis initiated an administrative appeal with the Department of Taxation’s Administrative Appeals and Dispute Resolution Program (AADR) in early January 2020. They did not file a Notice of Appeal with the Tax Appeal Court until September 14, 2020—roughly nine months after the deadline—and did not serve the Director of Taxation until September 30, 2020. The case sat largely dormant until a trial-setting conference in August 2024, after which the State moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Tax Appeal Court granted the State’s motion and entered Final Judgment on July 10, 2025. On appeal, the Mikamis argued equitable tolling, pandemic-related extraordinary circumstances, procedural barriers caused by the State’s attorney, and a violation of their constitutional due process rights. A threshold jurisdictional question—whether the Mikamis had paid the disputed taxes pending appeal as required—was rendered moot after the Tax Appeal Court granted the Mikamis relief from that requirement on remand in May 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Relying on its prior decision in Aregger v. State, Dep’t of Taxation, 124 Haw. 325 (App. 2010), the court held that both the 30-day filing deadline and the 30-day service requirement under HRS §§ 232-16 and 235-114(c) are jurisdictional prerequisites. Because the Mikamis failed to satisfy either requirement, the Tax Appeal Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and correctly dismissed the case.
The court rejected the equitable tolling argument, explaining that equitable tolling is available only for non-jurisdictional limitations periods and that the Hawaii statutes at issue impose jurisdictional requirements. The Mikamis’ reliance on Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 596 U.S. 199 (2022), was unavailing because that case addressed a non-jurisdictional federal deadline, not Hawaii’s jurisdictional scheme.
The court also dismissed the remaining arguments. The pandemic and alleged procedural confusion could not excuse the late filing because the deadlines are jurisdictional and not subject to equitable exceptions. The statement made by the State’s attorney during a December 2020 Zoom call—nearly a year after the deadline had already expired—was found to be entirely appropriate and consistent with Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct 4.2 and 4.3. Finally, the court held there was no due process violation: the Mikamis received actual notice of the assessments and had a statutory opportunity to be heard in the Tax Appeal Court, which they forfeited by missing the filing deadline.
Key Takeaways
- Under HRS §§ 232-16 and 235-114(c), both the 30-day deadline to file a notice of appeal with the Hawaii Tax Appeal Court and the 30-day deadline to serve the Director of Taxation are jurisdictional—not merely claim-processing rules—and cannot be excused by equitable tolling or extraordinary circumstances.
- Pursuing an administrative appeal through the AADR program does not toll or extend the statutory deadline for filing a direct appeal with the Tax Appeal Court; taxpayers who use the administrative route without also timely filing in the Tax Appeal Court risk losing their right to judicial review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Boechler that equitable tolling applies to non-jurisdictional federal tax deadlines does not govern Hawaii’s state tax appeal deadlines, which Hawaii courts have held to be jurisdictional.
- A government attorney’s compliance with professional conduct rules (HRPC 4.2 and 4.3) regarding communication with unrepresented parties does not constitute a procedural barrier giving rise to equitable relief.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that Hawaii’s tax appeal deadlines are strict and unforgiving. Taxpayers—particularly self-represented ones—who pursue informal administrative remedies must understand that doing so does not preserve their right to seek relief in the Tax Appeal Court. The 30-day window to both file and serve notice runs from the date the final assessment is mailed, regardless of any parallel administrative process or claimed confusion about procedure.
The opinion also signals that Hawaii courts will not import federal equitable tolling doctrine into the state tax appeal context. Practitioners advising clients on Hawaii income tax disputes should treat the filing and service requirements of HRS §§ 232-16 and 235-114(c) as absolute jurisdictional thresholds, and should counsel clients to file protective appeals with the Tax Appeal Court even while pursuing administrative resolution through the AADR program.