Summary
Georgia Amendment 2 would transition the role of the Georgia Tax Tribunal, which is housed in the executive branch, to the Georgia Tax Court, which would be housed in the judicial branch. The Georgia Tax Court would have statewide jurisdiction. If approved, judges would be appointed by the governor, with approval from the House Committee on Judiciary and Senate Judiciary Committee, and serve four-year terms.
Fiscal Impact
Since the amendment moves jurisdiction and funding from the executive branch to the judicial branch, it is not forecast to affect revenue or costs.
Proponents’ Arguments
Several arguments favor this amendment. First, the Tax Court would provide more sunshine and uniformity to its decisions. Second, as noted by the firm Evans Sutherland, the Tax Court would have broader jurisdiction over constitutional claims and Department of Revenue actions, answering appeals that would otherwise go to the Supreme Court and allowing the Supreme Court to focus on more serious crimes.
Opponents’ Arguments
There were no arguments against the bill. Only one legislator, a Republican, voted against the bill, and he did not disclose his reasoning. There was no public opposition to the amendment.
Discussion
Tax tribunals and tax courts are widespread across the United States. Twenty-nine states have tax tribunals housed in the executive branch, and six states have tax courts housed in the judicial branch.
Tax tribunals are more widespread, but tax courts are in states across the political spectrum from Hawaii to Indiana. Georgia’s current Tax Tribunal is designed to hear appeals of an official assessment, denials of a tax refund claim, challenges to state tax execution, declarative judgments, and denials of petition. The new tax court would continue to hear each of these claims in addition to constitutional claims and Department of Revenue actions.
First, a new tax court seems a better fit for the judicial branch. Under the current system, the courts are accountable to the same branch of government that creates the rules they adjudicate, which seems like a clear conflict of interest.
Second, if a case in a tax court needs to go to trial, it now has a dedicated pathway. Before, it would have to wait behind cases involving conventional crimes, sometimes for years.
Third, judicial branch entities are required to release their rulings publicly, while executive branch agencies are not. So, this amendment would provide more public information on complicated cases and more guidance for defendants and lawyers.
However, picking judges would be up to elected politicians, which could politicize the process. For example, executive branch employees currently oversee tax cases. While bureaucrats may not be known for their speed, they tend to be less political than politically appointed individuals.