ST. CHARLES PARISH SCH. BOARD v. La. Power & Light Co.

465 So. 2d 93, 23 Educ. L. Rep. 1126, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 8497
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedFebruary 11, 1985
Docket84-CA-276
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 465 So. 2d 93 (ST. CHARLES PARISH SCH. BOARD v. La. Power & Light Co.) 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
ST. CHARLES PARISH SCH. BOARD v. La. Power & Light Co., 465 So. 2d 93, 23 Educ. L. Rep. 1126, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 8497 (La. Ct. App. 1985).

Opinion

465 So.2d 93 (1985)

ST. CHARLES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, et al.
v.
LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT CO., et al.

No. 84-CA-276.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fifth Circuit.

February 11, 1985.
Writ Denied April 12, 1985.

*94 Chapman L. Sanford, Cangelosi & Sanford, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Andrew P. Carter, Eugene G. Taggart, J. Wayne Anderson, John H. Turner, Jr., Monroe & Lemann, New Orleans, for defendants-appellees.

Before BOWES, GAUDIN and GRISBAUM, JJ.

BOWES, Judge.

Nuclear power generating facilities are new to this state and, as far as we can determine, no litigation involving sales and use taxes on nuclear fuels has been reported.

Plaintiffs appeal the judgment of the district court dismissing their "Rule for Taxes" filed February 10, 1984, and ordering plaintiffs to accept under protest the taxes allegedly due. We affirm the trial court's ruling.

This action originated as a rule for taxes filed by the St. Charles Parish School Board under authority of tax ordinances adopted by the School Board and the St. Charles Parish Police Jury pursuant to provisions of Louisiana Constitution of 1974, Article 6, Section 29.[1] The rule was filed via summary procedure as authorized by La.R.S. 33:2841[2] and La.R.S. 47:1574.[3]

*95 After service of the rule, the defendant tax debtors attempted to pay the amount sought in the rule. Appellees sought to tender the funds under protest, seeking to use the procedures authorized by La.R.S. 47:1576.[4]

*96 The school board declined to accept the payment citing the provisions of R.S. 47:1561[5] which prohibits the payment under protest and suit for recovery once a "suit" is pending against the tax debtor.

The defendant-appellees moved to dismiss the summary action filed by plaintiff-appellants on the grounds of a constitutional and statutory right to pay under protest. From the colloquy at the hearing, it was unclear if any statute or ordinance was ruled unconstitutional by the trial judge. Accordingly, plaintiffs sought to appeal the case directly to the Louisiana Supreme Court, being under the impression that "The District Court held that the provisions of R.S. 47:1561 and the use of summary procedure as provided by R.S. 47:1571 unconstitutional if it restricted the `right' to pay under protest and sue for recovery." The Supreme Court transferred the case to this court, without comment, and without giving any ruling regarding constitutionality or any other subject. For this reason, we feel that the Supreme Court was of the opinion that the trial court made no ruling on constitutionality. We, likewise, feel that there was no such ruling by the trial court. The judgment signed by the trial judge does not address the constitutionality of any statute or ordinance. What is abundantly clear is that the district court dismissed the action by the School Board and ordered it to accept payment under protest.

In this case, plaintiffs filed a rule to show cause, seeking an order from the court directing the defendants to pay to St. Charles Parish School Board the following amounts:

 Tax                                $1,500,000.00
 Interest as imposed by Section
  9.30 as amended of Tax
  Ordinance $ 12% per annum
  from 3/31/83 thru 1/31/84            150,000.00
 Penalty $ 1¼ per month from
   03/31/83 thru 01/31/84 as
   imposed by R.S. 33:2746-            187,500.00
 25% penalty, failure to report        375,000.00
 5% Negligence penalty                  75,000.00
 TOTAL tax penalty & interest       $2,287,000.00
Plus additional interest on $1,500,000.00 from February 1, 1984, at the rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum as imposed in Section 9.03 at the Tax Ordinance plus penalty at the rate of one and one-fourth percent (1¼) per month as imposed by R.S. 33:2746 from February 1, 1984, until paid and ten percent (10%) of the entire amount due as attorney's fee.

Defendants sought no ruling on the constitutionality of the parish tax ordinances upon which plaintiffs' tax claim was based; neither did they seek a ruling on the validity of any other statute. No question was raised as to whether defendants' transaction was exempt from the taxes plaintiffs claimed were due.

Defendants, when served, did not deny the tax was owed by them, but rather attempted to tender $2,516,250.00 (being *97 the total tax, penalty and interest, plus additional interest prayed for) to plaintiffs in satisfaction of the rule. When plaintiffs refused tender of the disputed amount, appellees, Louisiana Power and Light Co. (L.P. & L.) and Combustion Engineering (C.E.) filed a motion to dismiss the rule for taxes (a summary proceeding) on the basis that a taxpayer is entitled to pay the amount the taxing authority alleges is due under protest and then, within thirty days, institute a suit (via ordinary process) to recover said payment. See LSA R.S. 47:15764 and Section 11.01[6] of the tax ordinances in question.

Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1979, at page 1195 defines "Rule" as "[a]n order made by a court, at the instance of one of the parties to a suit, commanding a ministerial officer, or the opposite party, to do some act, or to show cause why some act should not be done. It is usually upon some interlocutory matter." The same source states that a "show cause order" is "[a]n order, decree, execution, etc., to appear as directed, and present to the court such reasons and considerations as one has to offer why a particular order, decree, etc., should not be confirmed, take effect, be executed, or as the case may be."

We are of the opinion that a rule (to show cause) is not a "suit" as contemplated by L.S.A.R.S. 47:1561. Referring once again to Black, supra, we find the "[t]erm `suit' has generally been replaced by [the] term `action'." Action is defined as "[a]n ordinary proceeding in a court of justice by which one party prosecutes another for the enforcement or protection of a right, the redress or prevention of a wrong, or the punishment of a public offense." (emphasis ours). Also, La.C.C.P. art. 963 states, "The rule to show cause is a contradictory motion." (emphasis supplied). It is evident that the defendant's tender of the more than two million dollars that plaintiffs alleged were due satisfied the rule and rendered it moot. Accordingly, the trial judge had no recourse but to dismiss the action.

Finally, we note that the State constitution, the revised statutes, and the parish tax ordinance all specifically afford a taxpayer his day in court. La.R.S. 47:1576 specifically provides "a legal remedy and right of action in any state court having jurisdiction [over] ... the parties and subject matter for a full and complete adjudication of any and all questions arising ... as to the legality of tax accrued or accruing or the method of enforcement thereof."

It is a well-established rule of law that tax statutes shall be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayer, and, if the statute can reasonably be interpreted more than one way, the interpretation less onerous to the taxpayer shall be adopted. State v. Standard Oil Co. of Louisiana, 188 La. 978, 178 So. 601 (1937), Rehearing Denied.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Each party is to bear its own costs in this appeal.

AFFIRMED.

NOTES

[1] LOUISIANA CONSTITUTION OF 1974, Article 6, Section 29 is as follows:

"(A) Sales Tax Authorized.

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

Related

Tarver v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours & Co.
616 So. 2d 216 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1993)
Tarver v. Ormet Corp.
597 So. 2d 1172 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1992)
Marmac Corp. v. McNamara
546 So. 2d 585 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1989)
Bill Roberts, Inc. v. McNamara
527 So. 2d 459 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1988)
Portal Boat Co. v. Stephens
485 So. 2d 985 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1986)
St. Charles Parish School Board v. Louisiana Power & Light Co.
466 So. 2d 1302 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
465 So. 2d 93, 23 Educ. L. Rep. 1126, 1985 La. App. LEXIS 8497, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-charles-parish-sch-board-v-la-power-light-co-lactapp-1985.