State of Maine v. LeDuc

Superior Court of Maine·Decided April 22, 2008·No. KENcv-07-18·Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT KENNEBEC, ss. CIVIL ACTION Docket No. CV-07-~~ I

1/.1 ;1.1 ,N\ - ,I.c:,t tJ--L-J/;)C)/.;J.oe> '-i, STATE OF MAINE, )

)

Plaintiff, ) DECISION AND ORDER ON v. ) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT

EUGENE O. LEDUC, )

)

Defendant. )

Plaintiff State of Maine (the "State") has moved for summary judgment in its favor on its Complaint for Collection of Unpaid Maine Sales Tax, Interest, and Penalties ("Complaint") pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56. Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56(c), the State is entitled to summary judgment if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons cited herein, the Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the State is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the State's motion in its entirety.

Procedural Background

The State filed its Complaint on or about January 17, 2007. At the same time, the State sUbmitted its Certificate of State Tax Assessor Pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. § 174(1) ("Certificate"). Mr. LeDuc was personally served with the Summons, Complaint and Certificate in Holiday, Florida, on January 30, 2007. Mr. LeDuc subsequently filed his

pro se handwritten [undated] letter Answer on or about February 12, 2007 ("Answer"). The Answer denies generally that Mr. LeDuc is responsible for payment of the sales taxes of Duke's Ladder & Scaffold, Inc. l On April 26,2007, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, which set a discovery deadline of December 26, 2007. It does not appear that the parties conducted any discovery.2 STATEMENT OF FACTS

At all relevant times, Mr. LeDuc was the owner of Duke's Ladder & Scaffold ("Duke's"), doing business in Casco, Maine from at least June 1, 1993, through June 30, 1998. At all relevant times as the owner of Duke's, Mr. LeDuc was an employer who maintained an office or transacted business within this State.

1 Mr. LeDuc's Answer does not address the individually numbered paragraphs in the State's

Complaint, which are therefore deemed admitted. M.R. Civ. P. 8(d). In any event, in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, the State also submitted the Affidavit of Philip O. Young and the Certificate which also establish its claims by affirmative evidence. 2 Any issue relating to Mr. LeDuc's underlying tax liability is not relevant here, as he may not

now collaterally attack the tax liability which is valid and final. See 36 M.R.S.A. §174 ("In this action, the certificate of the assessor showing the amount of the delinquency is prima facie evidence of the levy of the tax, of the delinquency and of the compliance by the assessor with this Title in relation to the assessment of the tax."); see also Quirion v. P. U.C., 684 A.2d 1294, 1296 (Me. 1996) (recognizing the court has extended the principle of res judicata effect of final judgments to adjudicative decision of administrative bodies, and barring a collateral attack on an otherwise finaljudgmerit of an administrative body); Cline v. Maine Coast Nordic, 1999 ME 72, ~9, 728 A.2d 686, 688 (recognizing that collateral estoppel is applicable to administrative proceedings, and dismissing appellant's complaint for declaratory relief based upon estoppel as a result of earlier proceedings); Maine Cent. R.R. Co. v. Town ofDexter, 588 A.2d 589 (Me. 1991 )(in tax proceedings, court determined that under principles of resjudicata, when an administrative determination becomes final, the Superior Court should not grant a collateral review on the merits of the administrative determination); and Decision and Order on Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment dated October 3, 2006 in State ofMaine v. James H Furlong, CV-06-177. Here, Mr. LeDuc did not request reconsideration of the assessment at issue, which therefore became valid and final within thirty (30) days. Because Mr. LeDuc's underlying tax Iliabilities became valid and final long ago, discovery related to those liabilities is now irrelevant.

Beginning on or before June 1, 1993, Mr. LeDuc, as the owner of Duke's, was required to remit Maine sales taxes and to file monthly returns remitting payment as prescribed by law. Duke's filed an application for tax registration with Maine Revenue Services in or about October 1995. Duke's failed to file sales tax returns or remit sales taxes for the following periods: June 1, 1993, through March 31, 1996; and July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1998.

When Duke's failed to file the required returns for June. 1, 1993, through March 31, 1996; and July 1, 1996, through June 30, 1998, the Assessor sent Mr. LeDuc a notice and demand for filing the returns for those periods ("Demand for Filing") by certified mail to his last known address on or about June 26, 2002. This Demand for Filing was delivered to Mr. LeDuc on or about July 8, 2002.

When Duke's still failed to file the required returns, in accordance with 36 M.R.S.A. § 14 1(2)(C) ,3 the Assessor issued an assessment to Mr.

LeDuc for sales taxes owed by Duke's ("Assessment for Sales Taxes").

The notice of the Assessment for Sales Taxes was delivered to Mr. LeDuc on or about August 3,2002. Mr. LeDuc did not seek reconsideration of

I Although Duke's registered with the Maine Secretary of State as a corporation in 1997, Mr. LeDuc was assessed for the entire period pursuant to 36 M.R.S.A. :§ 141(2)(C), rather than as a "responsible individual" under 36 M.R.S.A. § 177 for 1997 and 1998, because Mr. LeDuc filed Schedules C with his federal individual tax returns for 1997 and 1998, rather than corporate income tax :returns. In either case, Mr. LeDuc was responsible for the sales taxes of Duke's.

the Assessment for Sales Taxes. Thus, the assessment became final on or about September 3, 2002.

When Mr. LeDuc did not pay the amount due under the Assessment for Sales Taxes, the Assessor issued a notice and demand for payment of the tax, interest, and penalties within 10 days (" 10- Day Demand for Sales Taxes") on or about February 8,2004. The 10-Day Demand for Sales Taxes was delivered to Mr. LeDuc on or about February 17, 2004.

Amount Owed

Mr. LeDuc has failed to pay the full amount of sales taxes, penalties, and interest for June 1, 1993, through June 30, 1998, that he owes the State, despite the demands of the Assessor. As of the date of the State's Complaint, the total that Mr. LeDuc owed the State of Maine for sales taxes, interest, and penalties for June 1, 1993, through June 30, 1998, was as follows: sales taxes of $64,332.34, interest of $92,101.86 (accrued through February 15,2007), and $38,501.66 in penalties, for a total of$194,935.86.

As of the date of the State's Complaint, the total that Mr. LeDuc owed the State of Maine for sales taxes, interest, and penalties for June 1, 1993, through June 30, 1998, was $194,935.86, with interest continuing to accrue monthly. The total that Mr. LeDuc owes the State of Maine for sales taxes, interest and penalties for June 1, 1993, through ,June 30, 1998, has since been updated by the Assessor to include

additional interest, for a total amount of $201,287.70 as of June 15, 2007, with additional interest continuing to accrue monthly.

Standard of Review

Pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56(c), the State is entitled to summary judgment if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Summary judgment is no longer an extreme remedy.

It is simply a procedural device for obtaining judicial resolution of those matters that may be decided without fact-finding. Summary judgment is properly granted if the facts are not in dispute or, if the defendant has moved for summary judgment, the evidence favoring the plaintiff is insufficient to support a verdict for the plaintiff as a matter of law.

Curlis v. Porler, 2001 ME 158,17,784 A.2d 18,21-22.

Discussion

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

State of Maine v. LeDuc, (Me. Super. Ct. 2008).

State of Maine v. LeDuc (State of Maine v. LeDuc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cline v. MAINE COAST NORDIC
1999 ME 72 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1999)
City of Lewiston v. Maine State Employees Ass'n
638 A.2d 739 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1994)
Davric Maine Corp. v. Bangor Historic Track, Inc.
2000 ME 102 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2000)
Quirion v. Public Utilities Commission
684 A.2d 1294 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1996)
Curtis v. Porter
2001 ME 158 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2001)