concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in the portion of the majority opinion which concerns “excess” taxes. I disagree with, and dissent from, that portion of the majority opinion which holds that Amoco is entitled to receive a tax refund because the taxes it paid were “erroneous or illegal” taxes. I do not believe that Amoco’s constitutional rights were violated. I would, therefore, affirm the district court’s decision.
This Court has ruled: “[T]ax refunds are a matter of legislative grace, and the right to such a refund does not exist in the absence of statutory authorization.” Black v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners, 775 P.2d 484, 487 (Wyo.1989). See also Meridian Aggregates Company v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 827 P.2d 375 (Wyo.1992). We must strictly construe statutes which provide for refunds of excess property taxes. Black, 775 P.2d at 487.
The majority holds that Amoco is entitled to receive a tax refund under the provisions *996of Wyo.Stat. § 39-4-101(b) (Supp.1993).1 Specifically, the Court rules that the taxes were “erroneous” and that under the statute “erroneous” has a meaning separate and distinct from “illegal.”
I believe that a careful reading of Wyoming case law interpreting the “erroneous or illegal” language reveals that the language has become a term of art which means illegal. In Atlantic Richfield Company v. Board of County Commissioners of County of Sweetwater, 569 P.2d 1267 (Wyo.1977), this Court interpreted the statutory language. 569 P.2d at 1273-75. The Court approvingly quoted an Arkansas case:
“In the case of Clay County v. Broum Lumber Co., 90 Ark. 413,119 S.W. 251, 253 [ (1909) ], it was said that ‘the term “erroneous assessment,” as there used, refers to an assessment that deviates from the law and is therefore invalid, and is a defect that is jurisdictional in its nature, and does not refer to the judgment of the assessing officers in fixing the amount of the valuation of the property.’ ”
569 P.2d at 1273-74 (quoting Ritchie Grocer Co. v. City of Texarkana, 182 Ark. 137, 30 S.W.2d 213, 214-15 (1930)).
That statement was consistent with earlier Wyoming ease law. In Board of Com’rs of Johnson County v. Searight Cattle Co., 3 Wyo. 777, 783-87, 31 P. 268 (1892), overruled on other grounds by Kelley v. Rhoads, 7 Wyo. 237, 51 P. 593 (1898), this Court held that the “erroneous or illegal” language did not provide a vehicle for recovering excess taxes which were collected as a result of an overassessment. 3 Wyo. at 783-87, 31 P. 268. In holding that “erroneous” has a meaning separate from “illegal,” the majority fails to distinguish these cases.
I would hold that, under the plain and unambiguous language of the statute, the taxes which were paid in this case were not erroneous or illegal. Parker Land and Cattle Company v. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 845 P.2d 1040, 1042-43 (Wyo. 1993). This case presents a classic incident of overassessment. The excess taxes were collected because the State Department of Revenue used incorrect information which was provided by Amoco to calculate the assessments. The taxes were not illegal, and the County Commissioners properly denied Amoco’s requests for refunds.
Amoco had a remedy for the overassess-ments. Wyo.Stat. § 39 — 2—201(b) (Supp.1993) requires persons with gross products from mines and mining claims to submit information to the State Department of Revenue about their production so that the department may assess the property. After the department determines the value of the product on the basis of the information submitted by the taxpayer, the department must give the taxpayer notice of the assessed valuation. The taxpayer has thirty days in which to protest the assessment. Wyo.Stat. § 39-2 — 201(d) (Supp.1993). See also AT & T Communications of the Mountain States, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization, 768 P.2d 580 (Wyo.1989). Amoco did not protest most of the assessments in this case.2
*997A subsequent discovery of error by the taxpayer or the agency is irrelevant under the current statutory scheme because no authority exists for a refund of overassessed taxes to be made after the protest period has expired. Under the plain language of the statute, the tax itself must be erroneous or illegal in order to establish the basis for a refund. In this case, the tax was not illegal. Instead, it was the assessment or payment which was improper. Searight Cattle Co., 3 Wyo. at 787, 31 P. 268.
Since the right to receive a refund of taxes is a matter of legislative grace and exists only by the virtue of a statute, neither the state nor the county authorities can be compelled to grant refunds which are not provided for by law. The special directives under the facts of this case did not, and indeed could not, serve as orders to the counties to refund the overpaid ad valorem taxes.
Amoco contends that it cannot always supply complete and accurate information for assessment purposes at the time that the initial reports must be filed with the state or within the thirty-day protest period. While I understand Amoeo’s plight and that of other similarly situated taxpayers, it is not this Court’s duty to correct the problem. The Court’s role is limited to interpreting the relevant statutes. If reporting within the time provided by the statutes is not possible, the Legislature is the proper forum in which taxpayers should air their grievances. Enron Oil & Gas Company v. Freudenthal, 861 P.2d 1090, 1094 (Wyo.1993); Amoco Production Company v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 797 P.2d 552, 555 n. 6 (Wyo.1990).
. Section 39 — 4—101 (b) provides in relevant part:
(b) If any person pays any tax, or portion thereof, found to have been erroneous or illegal, the board of county commissioners shall direct the county treasurer to refund the erroneous or illegal payment to the taxpayer.
. Amoco asserts in its reply brief to this Court that it protested some of the assessments and that those protests resulted in special directives which were ignored by the County Commissioners. Amoco refers to a number of special directives which, although they are not completely clear in this regard, suggest that they resulted from Amoco’s protests of the assessments. Most of these special directives resulted in increases in Amoco's taxable valuation and are of no consequence concerning Amoco’s right to receive a refund. A few special directives, however, resulted in decreased taxable valuations.
I note that using a reply brief to the Supreme Court is not the proper means for presenting an issue for disposition. See W.R.A.P. 7.01 and 7.03. Because the question of what effect a proper protest would have had on the outcome of this case was not specifically presented to the County Commissioners or to the district court, we should not consider it on appeal. Oatts v. Jorgenson, 821 P.2d 108, 111 (Wyo.1991); Wyoming Bank & Trust Company of Buffalo v. Bonham (In re State Bank Charter Application of Security Bank, Buffalo), 606 P.2d 296, 300 (Wyo. 1980). The special directives contain the only evidence in the record concerning the protests. They are not clear as to the basis of the protests or the procedural history. This Court requires parties to present their specific arguments to the *997agency, if appropriate, and then to the district court so that a clear and comprehensive record may be developed to support their respective positions. Without that record development, we are left to guess at the facts and proceedings below.