Lawrence Journal-World opinion section

A tax dispute between the state of Kansas and Gene Bicknell involves more than whether the state owes the retired businessman a $50 million tax refund. It’s a matter of due process and fair play.

Bicknell, who opened his first Pizza Hut in Pittsburg in 1962, later founded National Pizza Co., which grew into the nation’s largest franchiser of Pizza Hut restaurants. He also was prominent in the Kansas Republican Party and sought the GOP nomination for governor in 1986 and 1994.

In the 1990s, Bicknell bought a home in Florida, and, in 2003, he contends he retired and moved to Florida. However, he retained ownership of the Kansas-based National Pizza Co. until 2006.

That is the crux of the dispute. For 2005 and 2006, Bicknell filed non-resident income tax returns in Kansas. Bicknell points to the fact that he not only had moved to Florida, but also had registered to vote, registered his car, opened bank accounts and obtained a driver’s license in Florida. Nonetheless, the Kansas Department of Revenue contends he was still a Kansas resident and was required to pay tax on his National Pizza Co. income at the rate for Kansas residents.

Bicknell appealed that decision to the governor-appointed Board of Tax Appeals, which sided with the state. He then took his case to the Kansas Court of Appeals, which said the BOTA had erred. The case went back to the BOTA, which appealed the decision to the Kansas Supreme Court, which has not ruled in the case.

In the meantime, legislative actions that could affect Bicknell’s case were underway. Last year, a law was passed that would allow Kansas taxpayers to appeal a BOTA decision in district court, where they could have a full “de novo” trial at which they could present evidence and testimony to support their cases. That seems only fair.

This year, however, the House sought to pull back that provision and make it apply only to property tax appeals, not appeals involving income or other taxes. Sen. Tom Holland, D-Baldwin City, who served on the conference committee that produced the final version of the bill, said that change was rejected after stiff resistance from the Senate so the law would retain the language allowing income tax cases to be appealed in district court.

Bicknell blames the last-minute efforts to change this bill on Gov. Brownback and claims the governor may veto the bill because it does not change the appeals provision. The governor has not commented on the situation.

It would not be a particularly convenient time for the state to have to pay out a $50 million tax refund, but Bicknell deserves a fair decision in this case. If Bicknell owes the tax, he should pay it, but it’s simply not right for the state to use legislative maneuvering to try to usurp the right of Bicknell or other Kansas taxpayers to argue their cases in district court.