Summary
The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the federal Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act applies to discriminatory petroleum taxes affecting rail carriers. However, the court concluded that the Act authorizes only prospective injunctive or declaratory relief and does not waive sovereign immunity for claims seeking refunds of taxes already paid. The court affirmed dismissal of Housatonic Railroad's refund action against the Commissioner of Revenue Services.
Holdings
- The 4-R Act's prohibition on another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier encompasses discriminatory petroleum or gross-earnings taxes and is not limited to discriminatory ad valorem property taxes.
- The 4-R Act does not authorize a rail carrier to obtain a refund of taxes already paid; it authorizes prospective relief, including injunctive or declaratory relief, to prevent violations.
- A purchaser of petroleum products is not a taxpayer entitled to appeal under § 12-597 merely because the distributor passed the economic cost of the petroleum tax on to the purchaser.
- An appeal from a commissioner's decision concerning a petroleum-tax refund must proceed under the specific appeal provision, § 12-597, rather than the general appeal provision, § 12-33; therefore, a non-taxpayer cannot use § 12-33 to evade § 12-597's taxpayer requirement.
Questions Presented
- Whether the federal Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 permits a rail carrier to obtain a refund of petroleum taxes already paid to the state.
- Whether a purchaser of petroleum products that bore the economic cost of a petroleum tax, but was not legally liable for or directly paid the tax to the state, is a taxpayer entitled to appeal under General Statutes § 12-597.
- Whether General Statutes § 12-33 provides an alternative avenue for appealing a commissioner's decision concerning a petroleum-tax refund when § 12-597 limits appeals to taxpayers.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (23)
- C.R. Klewin Northeast, LLC v. State, 299 Conn. 167, 9 A.3d 326 (2010)(followed)
- DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Law, 284 Conn. 701, 937 A.2d 675 (2007)(followed)
- Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999)(followed)
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. New York State Office of Real Property Services, 306 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2002)(followed)
- CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Alabama Department of Revenue, 562 U.S. 277 (2011)(followed)
- Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Superior, 932 F.2d 1185 (7th Cir. 1991)(followed)
- Department of Revenue v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U.S. 332 (1994)(followed)
- Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U.S. 401 (2004)(followed)
- United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30 (1992)(followed)
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Lennen, 732 F.2d 1495 (10th Cir. 1984)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 23.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…