Jefferson Davis Parish School Board Through sales/use Tax Dept. v. Louisiana MacHinery Rentals, LLC

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

11-510 consolidated with 11-512

JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD THROUGH SALES/USE
TAX DEPT.

VERSUS

LOUISIANA MACHINERY RENTALS, LLC

consolidated with

JEFFERSON DAVIS PARISH SCHOOL BOARD THROUGH SALES/USE
TAX DEPT.

VERSUS

LOUISIANA MACHINERY COMPANY, LLC

**********

APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF JEFFERSON DAVIS, NO. C863-10 consolidated with C864-10
HONORABLE CRAIG STEVE GUNNELL, DISTRICT JUDGE

**********

JOHN D. SAUNDERS
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of John D. Saunders, J. David Painter, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Pamela Roman Mascari
Kean, Miller, LLP
P. O. Box 3513
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
(225) 387-0999
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant:
Louisiana Machinery Rentals, LLC
Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC

Drew M. Talbot
Rainer, Anding & McLindon
8480 Bluebonnet Blvd., Suite D
Baton Rouge, LA 70810
(225) 766-0200
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee:
Jefferson Davis Parish School Board through Sales and Use Tax Department

SAUNDERS, Judge.

This is a tax collection case. The tax collector properly followed the

procedure outlined in La.R.S. 47:337.51 and issued two dealers with notices of

assessment. Neither dealer responded to the assessment within sixty days or at the

administrative level.

The tax collector then filed a rule to show cause in a summary sales and use

tax proceeding in the trial court. There, the two dealers attempted to challenge the

assessments on the merits and through exceptions. The trial court found that these

challenges were not allowed under La.R.S. 47:337.51, as the assessments were

final. The dealers have appealed. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

Louisiana Machinery Rentals, LLC (LMR) and Louisiana Machinery

Company, LLC (LMC) were audited by the Jefferson Davis Parish School Board

(tax collector) for the period of December 1, 2003 through June 30, 2007. The

audits revealed a substantial sales and/or use tax deficiency.

The tax collector, in conformity with La.R.S. 47:337.48, issued to both LMR

and LMC a separate 30 Day Notices of Intent to Assess. Neither LMR nor LMC

responded to these notices.

After thirty days had elapsed, the tax collector, as required by La.R.S.

47:337.51, issued both LMR and LMC a separate Notices of Assessment 60-day

Notice – La.R.S. 47:337.51 REVISED. The assessments were issued on July 2,

2010, and were received by both LMR and LMC. Neither requested, as was its

right under La.R.S. 47:337.51, a hearing to raise any factual or legal objections to

the assessments.

On October 25, 2010, the tax collector filed two separate petitions for rules

to show cause in summary sales and use tax proceeding against each LMR and

LMC. Both responded to the petitions by filing various exceptions and raising

various arguments contesting the validity of the assessments both factually and

legally. At the hearing on both rules, the trial court refused to hear these

exceptions and arguments due to the assessment being final. As such, the trial

court issued separate judgments, both denying exceptions raised by LMR and

LMC and both granting the tax collector’s motions for partial summary judgment

against each for the amounts specified in each assessment. Both LMR and LMC

have appealed. The appeals were consolidated, with LMR and LMC raising the

following assignments of error.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR:

1. The Trial Court erred in precluding LMR[] and LMC’s defenses to
the assessment of sales and use tax where the assessments were not
“final” in the sense that they could not be defended, whether by
exception or on the merits, in a summary rule to collect sales tax;

2. The Trial Court erred in pretermitting and failing to sustain LMR’s
peremptory exception of improper party defendant where LMR
never engaged in any business or taxable transactions within the
parish;

3. The Trial Court erred in pretermitting and failing to sustain LMC[]
and LMR’s peremptory exceptions of prescription where the Tax
Collector’s claims against LMC and LMR had prescribed before
the tax was assessed; and

4. The Trial Court erred in granting partial summary judgments in
favor of the Jefferson Davis Tax Collector and against LMC and
LMR for sales tax, penalty[,] and interest allegedly due where (i)
the motions for partial summary judgment were not authorized by
the procedure governing summary rules to collect sales tax; (ii) the
affidavits of the Jefferson Davis Tax Collector were not based
upon personal knowledge and consisted of hearsay testimony and
the motions for summary judgment did not contain certified or
sworn copies of the documents referenced in the affidavits by
reference to the Petitions; (iii) the Tax Collector failed to present
evidence of essential elements of his claim – the existence of a
contract with a private auditing firm and that the contract was
approved by a majority of the taxing authorities within the parish;
and (iv) a genuine issue of material fact exists as to the amount of
tax (and penalty and interest) due.

2

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NUMBER ONE:

LMR and LMC’S first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in

precluding their defenses to the assessment of sales and use tax where the

assessments were not “final” in the sense that they could be defended, whether by

exception or on the merits, in a summary rule to collect sales tax. We find no merit

in this assignment of error.

Louisiana Revised Statutes 47:337.51 states:

A. Having assessed the amount determined to be due, the collector
shall send a notice by certified mail to the taxpayer against whom the
assessment is imposed at the address given in the last report filed by
said taxpayer, or to any address obtainable from any private entity
which will provide such address free of charge or from any federal,
state, or local government entity, including but not limited to the
United States Postal Service or from the United States Postal Service
certified software. If no report has been timely filed, the collector
shall send a notice by certified mail to the taxpayer against whom the
assessment is imposed at any address obtainable from any private
entity which will provide such address free of charge or from any
federal, state, or local government entity, including but not limited to
the United States Postal Service or from the United States Postal
Service certified software. This notice shall inform the taxpayer of the
assessment and that he has thirty calendar days from the date of the
notice to (a) pay the amount of the assessment; (b) request mandatory
arbitration pursuant to R.S. 47:337.51.1 or; (c) pay under protest in
accordance with R.S. 47:337.63 and file suit as provided for in that
Section or request mandatory arbitration pursuant to R.S. 47:337.51.1.

B. If any dealer shall be aggrieved by any findings or assessment of
the collector, he may, within thirty days of the receipt of notice of the
assessment or finding, do any of the following:

(1)(a) File an appeal from the decision of the collector
directed to any state, city, or federal court of competent
jurisdiction.

(b) Pay under protest in accordance with R.S. 47:337.63,
and either file suit as provided for in that Section, or
make a written request for mandatory arbitration pursuant
to R.S. 47:337.51.1.

(c) Mail a written request for mandatory arbitration
pursuant to R.S. 47:337.51.1 without payment under
protest.

3

(2) This Section shall afford a legal remedy and right of
action in any state, city, or federal court having
jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter for a full and
complete adjudication of any and all questions arising in
the enforcement of the local ordinance and this Chapter
as to the legality of any tax accrued or accruing or the
method of enforcement thereof.

C. (1) No assessment made by the collector shall be final if it is
determined that the assessment was based on an error of fact or of law.
An “error of fact” for this purpose means facts material to the
assessment assumed by the collector at the time of the assessment to
be true but which subsequently are determined by the collector to be
false. “Error of law” for this purpose means that in making the
assessment the collector applied the law contrary to the construction
followed by the collector in making other assessments.

(2) The determination of an error of fact or of law under this
Subsection shall be solely that of the collector, and no action against
the collector with respect to the determination shall be brought in any
court, and no court shall have jurisdiction of any such action, it being
the intent of this Subsection only to permit the collector to correct
manifest errors of fact or in the application of the law made by the
collector in making the assessment; however, all reductions of
assessments based on such errors, except estimated assessments made
due to the failure of the taxpayer to file a proper tax return, must be
approved and signed by the collector. Estimated assessments made
due to the failure of the taxpayer to file a proper tax return may be
corrected by the acceptance of the proper tax return and must be
approved by the collector or his designee.

“When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to

absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further

interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the legislature.” La.Civ.Code

art. 9. We find the language of La.R.S. 47:337.51(B) to be clear. A dealer, here

both LMR and LMC, has three avenues it could take once it receives an assessment:

file an appeal to the assessment, pay the assessment under protest, or simply pay

the assessment. Each avenue requires the dealer to take action once it receives an

assessment. If no action is taken by the dealer, the assessment becomes final. This

interpretation is consistent with this court’s finding in Lafayette Parish School

Board v. Simmons, 09-926, p. 1 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/17/10), 33 So.3d 973, 974,

4

wherein it stated, “the School Board’s Sales and Use Tax Collection Division

issued a Notice of Assessment in accordance with La. R.S. 47:337.51, which

required action on the part of the defendants within sixty days. A failure to act

within the sixty day period results in a final enforceable assessment.”

In the case before us, neither LMR nor LMC took any action on the

administrative level once either received its notice of assessment. Thus, as the trial

court correctly found, the assessment was final, and both were precluded from

raising defenses, whether by exception or on the merits, in a summary rule to

collect sales tax. Accordingly, we find no error by the trial court in its judgment.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR NUMBERS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR:

LMR and LMC’s remaining assignments of error all are predicated on their

ability, post final assessments, to contest that assessment made by the tax collector.

In order to find merit in LMR and LMC’s arguments raised in the remaining

assignments of error requires this court to make interpretations of law that are

improper and, further, would be in conflict with our finding in assignment of error

number one. Our finding in that assignment that the trial court properly deemed

the assessment as final pretermits adjudication of whether LMR’s peremptory

exception of improper party defendant was proper, whether LMR and LMC’s

peremptory exceptions of prescription were proper, and whether the trial court

erred in granting partial summary judgments in favor of the tax collector and

against LMR and LMC. Both LMR and LMC had a right to present these

exceptions, evidence, and arguments through clearly expressed options under

La.R.S. 47:337.51. They failed to do so.

CONCLUSION:

Louisiana Machinery Rentals, LLC and Louisiana Machinery Company,

LLC raise four assignments of error. First, they contend that the trial court erred in
5

precluding their defenses to the assessment of sales and use tax where the

assessments were not final in the sense that they could not be defended, whether by

exception or on the merits, in a summary rule to collect sales tax. We find that the

procedure delineated in La.R.S. 47:337.51 is clear, and that neither Louisiana

Machinery Rentals, LLC nor Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC followed that

procedure. Accordingly, the tax assessment against them was final. This finding

precludes adjudication of their remaining assignments of error. Thus, we affirm

the trial court’s ruling in its entirety. All costs of these proceedings are assessed to

Louisiana Machinery Rentals, LLC and Louisiana Machinery Company, LLC.

AFFIRMED.

6