CourtListener 10873365

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Electronically Filed
Intermediate Court of Appeals
CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX
10-JUN-2026
07:47 AM
Dkt. 126 SO

NO. CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE STATE OF HAWAI‘I

IN THE MATTER OF THE TAX APPEAL OF
RICKEY R. MIKAMI & EMILOU N. MIKAMI,
Appellants-Appellants,
v.
DIRECTOR OF TAXATION, STATE OF HAWAII,
Appellee-Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE TAX APPEAL COURT
(CASE NO. 1CTX-XX-XXXXXXX)

SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER
(By: Hiraoka, Presiding Judge, McCullen and Gluck, JJ.)

Self-represented Appellants-Appellants Rickey and
Emilou Mikami (the Mikamis) appeal from the July 10, 2025 Final
Judgment entered by the Tax Appeal Court (Tax Court). 1 The Tax
Court's Final Judgment followed entry of an Order granting the
Motion to Dismiss filed by Appellee-Appellee Director of
Taxation, State of Hawai‘i (State).
On appeal, the Mikamis argue that the Tax Court erred
in dismissing their case. Upon careful review of the record and

1 The Honorable Kevin T. Morikone presided.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

the briefs submitted, and having given due consideration to the
arguments advanced and the issues raised, we resolve the
Mikamis' contentions as follows, and affirm.
The relevant background facts are as follows: the
State issued two Notices of Final Assessment of Income Tax
(Notices) to the Mikamis on December 13, 2019. The "Hawaii
Taxpayer Bill of Rights," included with the Notices, informed
the Mikamis of their appeal rights:

Taxpayers have a right to appeal an assessment to our
Administrative Appeals Office, to the board of review, or
to the tax appeal court . . . . An appeal to the board of
review or to the tax appeal court must be filed within 30
days from the date the Final Notice of Assessment was
mailed. If the appeal is filed directly with the tax
appeal court, a court-stamped copy of the notice of appeal
must also be served on the Director of Taxation within 30
days from the date the Final Notice of Assessment was
mailed . . . .

(Emphasis added.) In early January 2020, the Mikamis filed an
administrative appeal with the State Department of Taxation's
Administrative Appeals and Dispute Resolution Program (AADR).
However, the Mikamis did not file a Notice of Appeal with the
Tax Court – appealing from the December 13, 2019 Notices – until
September 14, 2020. They did not serve the Director of Taxation
with their Notice of Appeal until September 30, 2020.
The State filed an Answer on October 22, 2020, but the
case sat largely dormant until a trial-setting status conference
in August 2024. On April 1, 2025, the State filed a Motion to
Dismiss (Motion), arguing that the Tax Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction because (1) the Mikamis failed to file their
Notice of Appeal with the Tax Court within thirty days of the
mailing of the final assessment, as required by Hawaiʻi Revised
Statutes (HRS) § 232-16 (2017), and (2) the Mikamis failed to
serve the Director of Taxation with a copy of their Notice of
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Appeal within thirty days of the mailing of the final
assessment, as required by HRS § 232-16. The Tax Court heard
the State's Motion on June 23, 2025, and granted the Motion in a
written order on July 10, 2025. The Tax Court entered Final
Judgment the same day, and the Mikamis appealed. They argue
that the Tax Court erred by failing to consider their equitable
tolling argument; that the Tax Court "failed to consider
procedural barriers imposed by the Department of Taxation" and
that the Mikamis "faced extraordinary circumstances including
pandemic-related shutdowns"; and that the dismissal violated
their constitutional right to due process. But first we address
the State's challenge to our jurisdiction.
Appellate Jurisdiction: The State's Answering Brief
argues that this court lacks jurisdiction because of the
Mikamis' failure to pay the disputed taxes pending appeal. This
issue, however, is now moot. The Mikamis filed their Notice of
Appeal, appealing the Tax Court's decision to this court on July
10, 2025. On October 15, 2025, the Mikamis filed a "Motion for
Determination of Relief Under HRS § 235-114(c) Pending Appeal"
with the Tax Court, asking that they be permitted to pursue
their appeal without paying the disputed taxes or posting a
bond. On May 1, 2026, this court temporarily remanded this case
to allow the Tax Court to hear and decide the motion. On May
13, 2026, the Tax Court entered a written order granting the
motion, after which the Tax Court clerk filed a supplemental
record on appeal and jurisdiction returned to this court. Given
the Tax Court's May 13, 2026 Order, this issue is moot and this
court will exercise jurisdiction over the appeal.
Equitable tolling: The Mikamis contend that equitable
tolling should apply, such that their appeal to the Tax Appeal
Court was timely. They argue that the thirty-day deadline to

3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

appeal to the Tax Court is non-jurisdictional, and that
"nonjurisdictional limitations periods are presumptively subject
to equitable tolling[.]" Boechler, P.C. v. Comm'r of Internal
Revenue, 596 U.S. 199, 209 (2022). The State, on the other
hand, argues that both the thirty-day appeal deadline and
service of notice of the appeal on the Director of Taxation are
jurisdictional, that the Mikamis failed to meet both
requirements, and that failure to meet either one is
dispositive.
This court has previously held that similar
requirements in HRS § 232-17 (2017) – that a taxpayer file a
notice of appeal and serve the Director of Taxation within
thirty days – are jurisdictional. 2 This court held: "According
to the plain language of the amended statute, a taxpayer must
file a notice of appeal in the tax appeal court and serve the

2 HRS § 232-17 governs appeals from the taxation board of review to
the Tax Court. The instant case, governed by HRS § 232-16, involves an
appeal to the Tax Court from Notices of Final Assessment of Income Tax.
There are differences between the statutes – among them, that HRS § 232-17
sets a specific time (thirty days), whereas HRS § 232-16 requires appeals to
be filed "on or before the date fixed by law for the taking of the appeal[.]"
For income taxes, that period is set by HRS § 235-114(c) (2017) at thirty
days:

(c) Any taxpayer or employer appealing from any
assessment of income taxes or liability shall lodge with
the assessor or assistant assessor a notice of the appeal
in writing, stating the ground of the taxpayer's or
employer's objection to the additional assessment or any
part thereof. The taxpayer or employer also shall file the
notice of appeal with the board or the tax appeal court at
any time within thirty days subsequent to the date when the
notice of assessment was mailed, properly addressed to the
taxpayer or employer at the taxpayer's or employer's last
known residence or place of business. Except as otherwise
provided, the manner of taking the appeal, the costs
applicable thereto, and the hearing and disposition
thereof, including the distribution of costs and of taxes
paid by the taxpayer pending the appeal, shall be as
provided in chapter 232.

(Emphases added.)
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Director with the notice of appeal to properly confer
jurisdiction. Therefore, service of notice on the Director is
now mandatory and jurisdictional . . . ." Aregger v. State,
Dep't of Tax'n, 124 Hawaiʻi 325, 328, 243 P.3d 285, 288 (App.
2010). Under this precedent, the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction
to hear the Mikamis' appeal because the Mikamis failed to file
their notice of appeal and failed to notify the Director of
Taxation within thirty days of the mailing of Notice. Thus, the
Tax Court did not err in dismissing the Mikamis' case.
Procedural barriers and "extraordinary circumstances
including pandemic-related shutdowns": The Mikamis argue that
their appeal should be considered timely because of
"extraordinary circumstances," but this argument fails because
the thirty-day appeal period and the thirty-day notice period
are jurisdictional. As for procedural barriers, the Mikamis
argue that they were "misled into believing counsel was required
to proceed" with their tax appeal during a Zoom call with the
State's attorney. But this Zoom call occurred in December 2020
– nearly a year after the appeal deadline had expired.
Additionally, the Mikamis misunderstand the State's attorney's
conduct. They point to the following statement (which they
claim is from a transcript of a Zoom call between the State's
attorney and Mr. Mikami) as misleading and creating a procedural
barrier to their appeal:
I represent the Department of Taxation. I represent their
interests. I don't represent your interest. Um, I am
defending them in the notice of appeal that you si [sic]
uh, you filed. Um, if you have an attorney, that's who I
should be talking to at this point. It's my understanding
you don't have an attorney.

Nothing about the State's attorney's statement was
inappropriate. The attorney appeared to be complying with two
provisions of the Hawaiʻi Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC).
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

The first is HRPC Rule 4.2 (eff. 2014), entitled "Communication
with Person Represented by Counsel," which provides:
In representing a client, a lawyer shall not
communicate about the subject of the representation with a
person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer
in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the
other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court
order.

The second is HRPC Rule 4.3 (eff. 2014), entitled "Dealing with
Unrepresented Person," which provides in relevant part:
(a) In dealing on behalf of a client with a person
who is not represented by counsel, a lawyer shall not state
or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. When the lawyer
knows or reasonably should know that the unrepresented
person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the
lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the
misunderstanding.

The Mikamis' argument that this was somehow misleading – or that
it somehow prevented them from filing a timely appeal – is
without merit.
Due process: The Mikamis' final argument is that they
were denied due process:
Appellant was denied due process of law when the
Department failed to issue a formal denial, provide
consistent communication, or explain that participation in
the Administrative Appeals and Dispute Resolution (AADR)
program would not preserve the right to appeal to the Tax
Appeal Court. These omissions created procedural confusion
that obstructed Appellant from exercising legal rights and
deprived him of a hearing on the merits.

Due process under the U.S. Constitution (14th
Amendment) and the Hawai‘i Constitution (Article I, § 5)
requires that all parties—including pro se litigants—
receive meaningful notice and a fair opportunity to
respond. The Department violated this standard by leading
Appellant to believe that the AADR process remained open,
while later using that same process as the basis for
dismissal.

"The basic elements of procedural due process of law
require notice and an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful
time and in a meaningful manner." Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa
6
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Temple of Hawaii v. Sullivan, 87 Hawaiʻi 217, 243, 953 P.2d 1315,
1341 (1998) (cleaned up). The Mikamis received both notice and
an opportunity to be heard. They do not dispute that they
received the Notices of Final Assessment of Income Tax.
Pursuant to HRS § 235-114 (2017), the Mikamis had the
opportunity to present their case to the Tax Court, provided
they file their notice of appeal within thirty days from the
mailing of the Notices. See HRS § 235-114(c) (2017) ("Any
taxpayer . . . appealing from any assessment of income taxes or
liability shall lodge with the assessor or assistant assessor a
notice of the appeal in writing, stating the ground of the
taxpayer's . . . objection to the additional assessment or any
part thereof. . . ."). 3 The Mikamis were not denied due process.

3 See also HRS § 232-16:
(a) A taxpayer or county may appeal directly to the
tax appeal court without appealing to a state board of
review or any equivalent administrative body established by
county ordinance; . . . An appeal to the tax appeal court
is properly commenced by filing, on or before the date
fixed by law for the taking of the appeal, a written notice
of appeal in the office of the tax appeal court and by
service of the notice of appeal on the director of
taxation . . . .

The Mikamis make no argument that these statutory provisions are facially
unconstitutional.

7
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Tax Appeal Court's
July 10, 2025 Final Judgment in favor of the State.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai‘i, June 10, 2026.
On the briefs:
/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka
Rickey R. Mikami and
Presiding Judge
Emilou N. Mikami,
Self-Represented Appellants-
/s/ Sonja M.P. McCullen
Appellants.
Associate Judge
Janine R. Udui
/s/ Daniel M. Gluck
Deputy Attorney General,
Associate Judge
for Appellee-Appellee.