Dugger v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission

1992 OK 105, 834 P.2d 964, 63 O.B.A.J. 2135, 1992 Okla. LEXIS 149
Supreme Court of Oklahoma·Decided July 14, 1992·No. No. 74586·Published·Cited by 38 cases

Opinions

ALMA WILSON, Justice:

The dispositive issue in this appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the findings and conclusions of the Oklahoma Tax Commission. We hold that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding by the Oklahoma Tax Commission that the federal adjusted incomes for tax years 1984, 1985 and 1986 were not recomputed in determining the tax reduction claimed for the 1987 tax year.

During 1984, 1985 and 1986, Athel W. Dugger received $426,567.00 from the sale of gas produced in this state. For tax years 1984, 1985 and 1986, Athel W. and Anna Dugger, appellants (taxpayers), reported the mineral interest proceeds for income tax purposes. Mobil Oil Corporation, an interest owner in the gas well, sued Dugger in federal district court to recover the gas proceeds paid to Dugger, on the grounds that the Dugger took a greater portion of the gas than he was entitled to receive. Pursuant to a settlement agree-mént, Dugger agreed that, as of December 31, 1986, he had received production proceeds in the amount of $426,567.00 and that he should pay $365,204.29 of the production receipts to Mobil Oil Corporation for distribution to the other interests owners. In 1987, Dugger paid to Mobil the judicially approved amount of overpayment. Dug-ger reported this repayment of $365,204.29 to the Internal Revenue Service in his 1987 personal income tax return, filed jointly with his spouse. In 1988, taxpayers filed amended state income tax reports for tax years 1984, 1985 and 1986 and claimed refunds for each year based upon the 1987 repayment to Mobil.

The Income Tax Division of the Oklahoma Tax Commission denied the refunds claimed on the amended state reports for the specified reason that the taxpayers failed to file amended federal returns for the involved tax years. Taxpayers protested the denial of refunds pursuant to 68 O.S.1981, § 207 and 68 O.S.Supp.1988, § 2373. On January 29, 1989, an adjudicatory proceeding was had before a hearing officer of the Oklahoma Tax Commission. On September 28, 1989, the hearing officer submitted written findings and conclusions to the Oklahoma Tax Commission and recommended that the taxpayer protest and claim for refund be denied. On November 14, 1989, the Oklahoma Tax Commission, appellee (OTC), issued Order No. 89-11-14-011, denying taxpayers’ request for a hear[966] ing before the OTC en banc and adopting the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations of the hearing officer. The Court of Appeals reversed Order No. 89 — 11—14— Oil and remanded the cause with directions to the OTC to refund the state income tax paid on the mineral proceeds which taxpayers repaid in 1987. Certiorari was previously granted to determine whether the findings and conclusions entered by the Oklahoma Tax Commission in Order No. 89-11-14-011 are supported by substantial evidence.

The issue presented to the OTC was whether taxpayers’ federal “claim of right” constituted an adjustment by the federal government to the taxpayers’ adjusted gross income for the involved tax years.1 Our income tax statutes “piggy-back” the calculation of state personal income tax upon the federal tax calculation,2 hence, taxpayers’ finally ascertained federal adjusted gross income for tax years 1984, 1985 and 1986 is a critical fact to the issue presented before the OTC. Generally, federal deductions and exclusions allowed in calculating federal adjusted gross income are incorporated into our income tax law through the definitions of Oklahoma adjusted gross income and Oklahoma taxable income, while the federal tax rates, tax exemptions and tax credits are not included as part of our income tax law.3 Thus, where a taxpayer reduces federal adjusted gross income by a loss suffered in any particular tax year, such as the repayment herein, Oklahoma recognizes the deduction for that same tax year. If the deduction generates a net operating loss which is allowed by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to be carried back as an adjustment to a prior year, then Oklahoma recognizes the federal adjustment for that same tax year.

The hearing officer and the OTC found that the federal income tax returns for the prior tax years were not reopened and therefore concluded there was no recompu-tation of taxpayers federal adjusted gross income for those prior tax years upon the reporting of the 1987 repayment as authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 1341 (1976).4 Our research indicates that the federal “claim of right” statute recognizes several methods of calculating the amount of overpayment of taxes, which may include finally ascertaining the amount subject to taxation by the United States in a prior year.

The federal “claim of right” statute, 26 U.S.C. § 1341 (1976), allows a taxpayer to recover overpayments of federal income taxes where previously reported income must be repaid. Under subsection (a), General rule., the amount of the overpayment of taxes may be calculated through an adjustment to arrive at taxable income for the tax year the money was repaid (repayment year) or through a credit adjustment to arrive at tax liability for the repayment year. The taxpayer must elect to reduce the adjusted gross income for the repayment tax year, § 1341(a)(4), or to reduce the tax liability for the repayment tax year, § 1341(a)(5). Where the taxpayer elects to calculate the overpayment prior to arriving at taxable income, subsection (b), Special rules., permits the taxpayer to further elect to adjust prior year income through a [967] carry-back deduction. It specifically provides that, where the deduction in (a)(4) results in a net operating loss for the repayment year, it may be carried back under § 172; and that, where the exclusion in (a)(5)(B) results in a net operating loss or capital loss for the prior tax years, for purposes of calculating the decrease in tax for the prior years, it may be carried back or carried over.

Federal jurisprudence recognizes the right of a taxpayer to elect the method of calculating the amount of overpayment of taxes pursuant to § 1341.5 In United States v. Skelly Oil Company, the United States Supreme Court concluded that § 1341 does not, as a matter of law, adjust prior year income, but that it provides methods of tax calculation, not originally embodied in the “claim of right” doctrine, to avoid inequitable annual accounting limitations. Quoting Justice Brandéis in North American Oil Consolidated v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 424, 52 S.Ct. 613, 615, 76 L.Ed. 1197, 1200, 1201 (1932), the United States Supreme Court explained the “claim of right” doctrine and § 1341:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dugger v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 1992 OK 105, 834 P.2d 964, 63 O.B.A.J. 2135, 1992 Okla. LEXIS 149 (Okla. 1992).

1992 OK 105 (Dugger v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

BROWN v. CLAIMS MANAGEMENT RESOURCES INC.
2017 OK 13 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2017)
GILLISPIE v. ESTES EXPRESS LINES, INC.
2015 OK CIV APP 93 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2015)
JC FAB, INC. v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION
2015 OK CIV APP 50 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2015)
AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION
2014 OK 95 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2014)
Grasso v. OKLAHOMA TAX COM'N
2011 OK CIV APP 37 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2011)
Income Tax Protest of Grasso v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2011 OK CIV APP 37 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2011)
AAAA Wrecker Service, Inc v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2010 OK CIV APP 121 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2010)
In Re Protest to Cert. of Title Brand
2010 OK CIV APP 121 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2010)
Estate of Stuart v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2008 OK CIV APP 85 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2008)
Snider Bros., LLC. v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission
2008 OK CIV APP 80 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2007)
General Accessory Manufacturing Co. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2005 OK CIV APP 75 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2005)
Estate of Sieber v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2002 OK CIV APP 25 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2001)
Frances M. Rosen Irrevocable Trust v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2001 OK CIV APP 114 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2001)
R.K. Black, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2002 OK CIV APP 8 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2001)
Matlock v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2001 OK CIV APP 104 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2001)
Lloyd v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission
2001 OK CIV APP 41 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 2001)
Neer v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission
1999 OK 41 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1999)
Oklahoma Schools Insurance Ass'n v. Oklahoma Tax Commission
1999 OK CIV APP 102 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1999)
Snider v. State Ex Rel. Oklahoma Real Estate Commission
1999 OK 55 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1999)
West v. State ex rel. Oklahoma Tax Commission
1999 OK CIV APP 24 (Court of Civil Appeals of Oklahoma, 1998)