Preview:

SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
NOS. 95-C-2873, 95-C-2885, 95-C-2899, 95-C-2904

Triangle Marine, Inc.
versus
James R. Savoie, etc.,

Consolidated with

Marine Asset Management Corporation
versus
James Savoie
(And Other Consolidated Cases)

consolidated with
Montco, Inc.
versus
Cameron Parish, et al
and Six Other Consolidated Cases


consolidated with
Point Marine, Inc. et al
versus
James R. Savoie, Etc.
(And ten Other Consolidated Cases)

consolidated with
Cameron Boat Rentals, Inc. et al
versus
James R. Savoie, Etc.
(And Other Consolidated Cases)


WATSON, J. dissenting,
The vessel-owners argue that the vessel ad valorem tax is invalid because their vessels are exempt from taxation.  Because they assert a constitutional exemption, they argue their claim is a tax legality challenge properly instituted by suit under LSA-R.S. 47:2110 after tax payment under protest.  They claim they were not required to seek administrative review prior to seeking judicial review.  They err in confusing this challenge to the correctness of an assessment with a challenge to the legality of a tax.
Review of true tax legality challenges illustrates the distinction.  In First Nat. Bank v. City of New Orleans, 555 So.2d 1345 (La. 1990), the City of New Orleans assessed an ad valorem tax against the shares of stock in local banks.  A bank paid the tax under protest and filed suit under LSA-R.S. 47:2110 claiming the tax itself was invalid as applied to all banks because it did not provide a deduction for tax-exempt federal securities as required by federal law.
Allied Chemical v. Iberville Parish Police, 426 So.2d 1336 (La. 1983) is relied on by the vessel-owners for the proposition that tax exemption claims are brought under LSA-R.S. 47:2110.  However, the decision actually supports the lower courts' analysis. In Allied Chemical, the police jury had passed a resolution which imposed a tax on "all property" within a special service district.  The taxpayers contended the tax resolution as adopted was too broad because it failed to recognize a statutory exemption for industrial areas.  The taxpayers filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to have the court interpret the taxing resolution or to have the bond issue which was supported by the tax declared illegal.  This Court held that the declaratory judgment action was not available and that the taxpayers were required to pay their taxes under protest and to bring an action under LSA-R.S. 47:2110.
Superficially, Allied Chemical and this case both concern taxpayers asserting an exemption against an ad valorem tax.  However, the focus of the dispute is different. In Allied Chemical, the taxpayers asserted the ad valorem tax itself was invalid because it conflicted with a statutory exemption.  This presented a conflict between laws, which the courts alone may resolve.  Thus, the taxpayers in Allied Chemical were asserting a legality challenge which should have been brought pursuant to LSA-R.S. 47:2110.
The tax legality dispute in Allied Chemical was resolved by this Court in In re Pitre, 93-2322 (La. 1/14/94); 630 So.2d 700.  One of the Allied Chemical taxpayers thereafter paid the ad valorem taxes under protest and brought suit under LSA-R.S. 47:2110. This Court upheld the tax; the statutory exemption was an unconstitutional expansion of the exclusive ad valorem exemptions listed in La. Const. art. 7,

Download 95C2873.jcw.pdf

Louisiana Law