Louisiana Power & Light v. Parish Sch. Bd.

597 So. 2d 578, 1992 WL 56647
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMarch 16, 1992
Docket91-CA-612
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 597 So. 2d 578 (Louisiana Power & Light v. Parish Sch. Bd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Louisiana Power & Light v. Parish Sch. Bd., 597 So. 2d 578, 1992 WL 56647 (La. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

597 So.2d 578 (1992)

LOUISIANA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY and Combustion Engineering, Inc.
v.
The PARISH SCHOOL BOARD OF the PARISH OF ST. CHARLES, individually and as collecting agent for the Parish Council of St. Charles, successor to the Police Jury of the Parish of St. Charles and E.H. Flynn, Director of Tax Collections, St. Charles Parish School Board.

No. 91-CA-612.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

March 16, 1992.
Rehearing Denied May 18, 1992.

*579 Roy M. Lilly, Jr., Chapman L. Sanford, Sanford & Lilly, a Law Corp., Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants.

Eugene G. Taggart, Anne L. Lewis, Monroe & Lemann, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Before GRISBAUM, WICKER and GOTHARD, JJ.

GRISBAUM, Judge.

This appeal arises out of a suit which addresses whether Louisiana Power & Light's nuclear fuel assemblies were exempt from local government and school board sales/use and lease taxes owed to the defendants. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendants appeal. We affirm.

FACTS

Louisiana Power & Light (LP & L) brought nuclear fuel assemblies into St. Charles Parish for use in its nuclear fuel generation facility at Waterford III. This generating station generates electricity by heating water in a boiler which produces steam and then uses the steam to spin a turbine connected to a generator that produces electricity. The nuclear fuel assemblies arrived in St. Charles Parish in four separate shipments:

Batches A, B and C—February/March, 1983

Batch D—October/November, 1986

Batch E—March, 1988

Batch F—August, 1989

Nuclear fuel assemblies were shipped to Waterford 3 by C-E, which performs fabrication services on LP & L's converted and enriched uranium. LP & L purchased *580 the natural uranium during the 1970's, and it was subsequently converted and enriched by vendors of those services. Fabrication services transform the converted and enriched uranium into ceramic pellets, which are then placed in long tubes called fuel rods. The fuel rods are then placed into a cage[-]like structure called a fuel assembly. The shipments of fuel to Waterford 3 contained from 84 to 217 fuel assemblies. The total charges associated with the various batches of nuclear, excluding sales/use taxes, were:

Batches A, B and C: $ 61,515,740.19

Batch D: $ 72,814,297.90

Batch E: $ 55,936,470.08

Batch F: $ 67,900,722.72

... After they are used, the fuel assemblies are stored at Waterford 3 in the spent fuel pool. LP & L has contracted with the Department of Energy for the eventual disposal of the fuel.
After the arrival of the first two shipments, the Tax Collector assessed a use tax on the shipments and the taxpayers made payment under protest and timely filed suit to recover. After the arrival of Batches E and F, the taxpayers made additional payments under protest and filed suit to recover. The Tax Collector now claims that LP & L owes additional use taxes and a lease tax on the financing vehicle LP & L used to pay for the fuel.
LP & L financed the nuclear fuel by transactions commonly known as sale/lease-backs, which were structured to give LP & L access to otherwise inaccessible credit markets through corporations created for the sole purpose of financing the costs of the nuclear fuel used at Waterford 3. Whenever LP & L required monies to pay a vendor for uranium or related services, LP & L "sold" the natural uranium or the nuclear fuel to a shell corporation—at first, Bayou Fuel, and since 1989, River Fuel. The shell corporations were single[-]purpose corporations owned by investment bankers. The title, but never the possession of the natural uranium or fuel, was transferred to the shell corporation. LP & L received loans equal to the book value of the uranium or fuel, i.e., LP & L's cost. The shell corporations then entered into a paper transaction calling for "lease" payments to them for the nuclear fuel, which never left LP & L's control or possession. The quarterly payments are repayment by LP & L to the shell corporations of the principal and interest due the creditors and administrative fees. Payments by LP & L were deferred until the fuel was used at the plant in 1985. Acting as LP & L's conduit to credit markets not otherwise available to LP & L, the shell corporations sold commercial paper, backed by a third-party bank letter of credit, to obtain the funds they lent to LP & L.
The Tax Collector seeks use taxes, including those held in escrow, that he claims total $19,182,092.82. The Tax Collector also belatedly seeks a lease tax on LP & L's quarterly payments of principal and interest to shell corporations through which LP & L financed its purchase of the same nuclear fuel. The Tax Collector computes a lease-tax of $14,931,457.95 on these quarterly payments. He then concludes that the potential combined use and lease taxes due on the nuclear fuel amount to $34,113,550.77. The taxpayers submit that the evidence and the authorities establish that no sales/use taxes are due because nuclear fuel is entirely exempt from such taxes, and no lease tax is due on the transaction LP & L used to finance the costs of their nuclear fuel. The taxpayers [claim they] are entitled to a refund of $4,912,662.08 in sales/use taxes paid under protest on exempt nuclear fuel used between 1983 and 1990 at Waterford 3....

....

The District Court in its Judgment of April 26, 1991, found that (1) the taxpayers are entitled to a refund of the payments made under protest and interest, (2) the taxpayers are not liable for any additional use or lease taxes on Batches A through F of nuclear fuel, and (3) that future shipments of the fuel are not subject to use or lease taxes unless the *581 Louisiana Legislature modifies the application of such taxes to nuclear fuel.

(Plaintiffs-appellees' original brief at pp. 5-8, footnotes omitted.)

ISSUES

(1) Whether nuclear fuel is exempt from parochial sales and use taxes;

(2) Whether La. Const. of 1974, art. VI, § 29(D) bars the application of the exemption to St. Charles Parish taxes, in whole or in part, because certain parochial taxes were adopted and bonded before the effective date of the exemptions; and

(3) Whether the quarterly payments of principal and interest stemming from a financing transaction structured in the form of a sale/lease back are subject to the parochial lease tax.

ANALYSIS—ISSUE ONE

This question is one of statutory construction. Pertinent law is found in La. R.S. 1:12, 1:14, and 1:15.

La.R.S. 1:12 reads, "The classification and organization of the sections of the Revised Statutes is made for the purpose of convenience, reference, and orderly arrangement, and no implication or presumption of a legislative construction shall be drawn therefrom."

La.R.S. 1:14 reads:

Unless otherwise indicated in the context, references in the Revised Statutes, Titles, Sub-titles, Chapters, Parts, Sub-parts, or Sections shall mean Titles, Sub-titles, Chapters, Parts, Sub-parts, or Sections of the Revised Statutes.
Whenever any reference is made to any portion of the Revised Statutes or any other law, the reference applies to all amendments thereto hereafter made.

La.R.S. 1:15 reads, "The repeal of a repealing law shall not revive the first law."

La.R.S. 24:253, pertinent to the powers of the Louisiana State Law Institute, reads:

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

Related

System Fuels, Inc. v. Kennedy
858 So. 2d 585 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 2003)
Gard Ltd. Liability Co. v. Calcasieu Parish School Board
693 So. 2d 10 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1997)
Greater New Orleans Expressway Commission v. Board of Tax Appeals
681 So. 2d 957 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1996)
Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. St. Charles Parish School Board
658 So. 2d 36 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1995)
Bamma Leasing v. Secretary Dept. of Rev.
646 So. 2d 917 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1994)
In Re Chase Manhattan Leasing Corp.
626 So. 2d 433 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
Opinion Number
Louisiana Attorney General Reports, 1993

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
597 So. 2d 578, 1992 WL 56647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisiana-power-light-v-parish-sch-bd-lactapp-1992.