Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2009, the Montana Department of Revenue (Department) began the process of reappraising Montana agricultural properties. In 2010, Petitioners filed a petition for declaratory judgment and writ of mandate seeking a declaration that the Department improperly assessed their agricultural property for tax uses. The district court granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly interpreted the plain language of section 15-7-111 and complied with the rules of statutory construction; and (2) the Department followed the rule-making mandate of section 15-7-111(2), the Department’s application of section 15-7-111 was not unlawful, and the Department is capable of implementing the district court’s interpretations of section 15-7-111. View "Lucas Ranch, Inc. v. Mont. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

For tax year 2004, the State of Montana, Department of Revenue (DOR) centrally assessed property owned by Omimex Canada Ltd. and classified it under class nine. Omimex contested the assessment, claiming that it did not operate a “single and continuous property,” and therefore, its properties should be locally assessed and subject to the lower tax rate under class eight. The district judge entered an order in 2007 finding that Omimex’s properties operated as a single and continuous property. The Supreme Court reversed, concluding that Omimex’s property was not subject to classification under class nine, regardless of whether it was centrally assessed. For the tax year 2011, DOR again centrally assessed Omimex’s property and classified it under class nine. Ommimex filed a declaratory action arguing that it did not operate a single and continuous property. The district court granted partial summary judgment for DOR, concluding that the doctrine of issue preclusion barred Omimex from relitigating the issue. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the court erred when it concluded that the district court’s 2007 finding precluded Omimex from litigating the issue of whether it operated a single and continuous property because Omimex demonstrated the existence of genuine questions of material fact regarding whether the issue in the current litigation was identical to the issue in the 2007 litigation. View "Omimex Canada, Ltd. v. State Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

In 2012, after auditing Cloud Peak Energy Resources, LLC’s Montana Coal Tax payments for years 2005-2007, the Department levied a deficiency assessment for additional taxes owing from sales involving non-arm’s length (NAL) agreements. Cloud Peak filed a complaint alleging that the Department’s methodology for determining market value was illegal and that it had also illegally assessed taxes on coal additives for the years 2005-2007. The district court (1) held in Cloud Peak’s favor on the first issue, concluding that the market value of coal sold under NAL agreements is determined by comparing its price with that of coal sold under arm’s length contracts negotiated in a similar timeframe; and (2) ruled in the Department’s favor on the issue regarding additives. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly found that market value is properly based upon similarly negotiated contracts, but the additional language included in the order was inappropriate; and (2) did not err in holding that coal additives used from 2005-2007 are subject to Montana Coal Taxes. View "Cloud Peak Energy Res., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

Westmoreland Resources Inc. (WRI) mines coal owned by the Crow Tribe and pays coal severance and gross proceeds taxes to the Tribe. In 2005, WRI filed a tax return with the Department of Revenue for coal produced and sold at its Absaloka Mine, located on the Crow Reservation, during tax year 2004. The return deducted the coal severance and gross proceeds taxes it had paid to the Tribe. The Department disallowed WRI’s deduction. WRI filed a complaint with the State Tax Appeal Board. WRI and the Department later filed a joint petition for an interlocutory adjudication of a substantive question of law with the district court. At issue was whether WRI’s coal severance and gross proceeds deduction was proper. The district court held in favor of the Department, concluding that WRI may not deduct taxes paid to the Tribe as “taxes paid on production” from the “contract sales price” when calculating the Resource Indemnity Trust and Ground Water Assessment Tax. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the phrase “any tax paid to the federal, state, or local governments” within Mont. Code Ann. 15-35-102(11) does not include those taxes WRI pays to the Tribe. View "Westmoreland Res., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Delaware LLC operating in Montana, purchased a cable television network infrastructure in Montana in 2003. In 2010, Plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment action in response to certain actions taken by the State of Montana Department of Revenue. Specifically, Plaintiff sought (1) to prevent the Department from issuing revised assessments of Plaintiff for tax years 2007 through 2009 and to prevent the Department from issuing any other revised assessments, and (2) a declaration that the Department had illegally assessed all of Plaintiff's property as class thirteen property. The district court granted summary judgment for Plaintiff on the Department's ability to issue retroactive assessments and directed the Department to refund with interest the payments that Plaintiff had made under protest. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in concluding (1) Plaintiff owned exclusively class eight property because, under Montana law, Plaintiff was subject to assessment under class thirteen; and (2) the Department lacked authority to issue revised assessments for Plaintiff's property for tax years 2007 through 2009 where the Department's discovery and subsequent reclassification arose from the audit's revelation of inaccuracies in Plaintiff's self-classification. View "Bresnan Commc'ns, LLC v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Defendants, an attorney and a law firm, structured a tax-deferred exchange for Plaintiffs, a husband and wife and the cattle ranch they owned. It was later determined that the exchange did not qualify for deferred tax treatment under 26 U.S.C. 1031, resulting in significant tax liability for Plaintiffs. Defendants filed an action against Defendants for professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants on all claims on grounds that Plaintiffs' claims were time barred. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Plaintiffs' tort claims were timely filed, and the issue of whether Plaintiffs' timely filed their misrepresentation claim was a question of material fact to be resolved by a jury; (2) Plaintiffs properly stated a claim for breach of contract and the claim was not time barred; and (3) the district court erred in granting Defendants a protection order to prevent discovery of alleged work product and attorney-client communications, as further analysis and fact finding were necessary to determine which documents were discoverable and which qualified for work product or attorney-client protection. Remanded. View "Draggin' Y Cattle Co., Inc. v. Addink" on Justia Law

Mont. Code Ann. 15-6-218 grants tax exemption to intangible personal property and defines intangible personal property. The statute lists "goodwill" as the one non-exhaustive example of intangible property that lacks physical existence. The Department of Revenue implements the statute with Mont. Admin. R. 42.22.110. In 2010, the Department amended its definitions of intangible personal property and goodwill. The district court found that the new definitions of intangibles and goodwill imposed additional and contradictory requirements on state law and that the valuation manuals adopted by the Department were invalid to the extent they supported the Department's new rules. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded (1) the Department's regulation defining goodwill was invalid because it conflicted with section 15-6-218(2)(b); (2) the Department's regulation defining intangible personal property was invalid because it conflicted with section 15-6-218(2)(a); and (3) the valuation manuals adopted by the Department were invalid to the extent they supported its new rules. View "Gold Creek Cellular of Mont. Ltd. P'ship v. Dep't of Revenue " on Justia Law

Mont. Code Ann. 15-7-211 requires the Department of Revenue (Department) to reappraise all residential property in the state every six years. The Department assessed the value of Plaintiff's property in 2008 and used the 2008 appraisal to establish Plaintiff's tax liability for the six-year tax cycle ending in 2014. Plaintiff argued that section 15-7-111, as applied, violated its right to equal protection. The State Tax Appeal Board rejected the claim. The district court, however, concluded that section 15-7-111 violated Plaintiff's right to equal protection because the six-year tax cycle caused some taxpayers to pay a disproportionate share of taxes due to their over-assessed property value and other taxpayers to pay less than their fair share of taxes due to their under-assessed property value. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that similarly situated taxpayers, for a short time, may pay divergent taxes, and such a divergence in taxes does not violate equal protection privileges. View "Covenant Invs., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Paula Ehrmantraut-Kiosee sought tax deductions for educational expenses incurred in pursuit of a doctoral degree in psychology. The Montana Department of Revenue disallowed the deductions sought by Paula individually in 2007, and jointly with Randy Myrup in 2008 and 2009. The Office of Dispute Resolution affirmed the disallowance, and the State Tax Appeal Board (STAB) upheld the disallowance. The district court denied Taxpayers' petition for judicial review. After noting that educational expenses will be deemed nondeductible as qualification for a new trade or business if the education is a step towards obtaining a certification that, once obtained, would qualify the taxpayer to perform tasks significantly different from those the taxpayer performed before receiving the education, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the findings of STAB and the district court that Paula pursued her education in an effort to become a clinical psychologist, rather than simply to improve her skills as a counselor, were supported by substantial evidence; and (2) therefore, Taxpayers failed to demonstrate that the educational expenses were deductible under either 26 C.F.R. 1.162-5(a)(1) or (2). View "Myrup v. State, Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law

Plaintiff asked the district court for a declaratory judgment that the Montana Department of Revenue (DOR) used improper or illegal methods of assessing Plaintiff's Montana properties for property tax purposes in 2009 and 2010. The court granted summary judgment in favor of DOR on Plaintiff's claims, ruling that Plaintiff's substantive arguments could not be brought directly in a Montana district court without first appealing to the administrative tax appeals boards. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiff's challenges to the methods and procedures of assessment used by DOR to assess Plaintiff's property must be raised through the administrative tax appeal process; (2) Plaintiff's claim that DOR failed to equalize its valuation of Plaintiff's property is the type of challenge that must be pursued administratively; and (3) the district court did not err when it granted DOR summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim that the 2009 assessment of its property was illegal or improper because the assessment was made too late. View "CHS, Inc. v. State Dep't of Revenue" on Justia Law