Case Title: Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Study

Citation: 

Docket Number: 93-45

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1994-01-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Study1994 WY 2866 P.2d 1288Case Number: 93-45Decided: 01/07/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
THUNDER 
BASIN COAL COMPANY, Petitioner,

v.

Shirley A. STUDY, Campbell County Treasurer, 
Respondent.

 

Alan B. Minier of 
Rothgerber, Appel, Powers & Johnson, Cheyenne, for petitioner.

Russell A. Hansen, Campbell 
County Pros. Atty., Gillette, for 
respondent.

Before MACY, C.J., and THOMAS, CARDINE, GOLDEN and 
TAYLOR, JJ.

MACY, 
Chief Justice.

[¶1]      Petitioner 
Thunder Basin Coal Company petitioned the district court for review of the 
refusal of Respondent Shirley A. Study, Campbell County Treasurer, to accept a 
certified check for deposit into an escrow account in an amount equal to all the 
disputed ad valorem taxes. The district court certified the matter to this Court 
pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b).

[¶2]      We are asked to 
answer the following question:

Can the county treasurer require the deposit of 
disputed interest and penalty, plus taxes in order to establish an interest 
bearing escrow account pursuant to W.S. § 39-4-101(d)?

We answer this question in 
the negative. We hold that the county treasurer may not require payment of 
interest and penalty and that she must accept payment of the disputed taxes for 
deposit into an escrow account.

[¶3]      The facts of this 
case are uncontroverted. Thunder Basin owns and operates two surface coal mines 
located in Campbell County, Wyoming, known as the Black Thunder Mine and the 
Coal Creek Mine. The tax auditors for the State of Wyoming audited the mines' 
records for the production years of 1978 through 1988. The original tax 
liability for the years in question had been properly 
paid.

[¶4]      After the audit 
was completed, the State Department of Revenue sent a letter to Thunder Basin, 
notifying it that the taxable value of the mines should be revised and increased 
for the years in question. The letter contained a revised severance tax 
assessment and indicated that the State Department of Revenue claimed no 
interest or penalties. Thunder Basin filed a timely appeal from this 
determination with the State Board of Equalization and deposited the amount of 
the disputed severance taxes into the state escrow 
account.

[¶5]      On October 7, 
1992, the State Department of Revenue certified the increase in the taxable 
valuation of the mines to Campbell County, and the county treasurer sent tax 
notices to Thunder Basin. The tax notices requested payment of additional ad 
valorem taxes for the years in question. The notices also sought payment of 
interest, as calculated by the county treasurer, on the tax 
amounts.

[¶6]      After a series of 
discussions and correspondence between Thunder Basin and the Campbell County 
attorney regarding the interest claims, Thunder Basin tendered a certified check 
to the county treasurer for the amount of the disputed ad valorem taxes. The 
county treasurer refused to accept the check because the amount tendered did not 
include interest. Thunder Basin filed a petition with the district court for 
review of the county treasurer's decision. The district court certified the 
matter to this Court for resolution pursuant to W.R.A.P. 
12.09(b).

[¶7]      When a case is 
certified to this Court pursuant to W.R.A.P. 12.09(b): "[W]e must review the 
decision `under the appellate standards applicable to a reviewing court of the 
first instance.'" Amax Coal Company v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization, 819 P.2d 825, 828 (Wyo. 1991) (quoting Campbell County v. Wyoming Community College 
Commission, 731 P.2d 1174, 1175 (Wyo. 1987)), quoted in Texaco, Inc. v. State 
Board of Equalization, 845 P.2d 398, 399 (Wyo. 1993). The scope of our review of 
administrative decisions is defined by Wyo. Stat. § 16-3-114(c) 
(1990).

[¶8]      The Legislature 
gave taxpayers the opportunity to have payments for disputed taxes deposited 
into an escrow account under Wyo. Stat. § 39-4-101(d) (Supp. 
1993):

(d) If taxes are paid under protest due to an appeal 
pending before the state board of equalization, the county treasurer shall 
deposit the amount under appeal in an interest bearing escrow account and 
withhold distribution until a final decision on the appeal has been rendered. If 
the taxpayer prevails in the appeal, the county treasurer shall refund the 
amount under appeal, plus interest earned, to the taxpayer within thirty (30) 
days from the day the final decision is rendered.

Thunder Basin contends that, 
under the language of § 39-4-101(d), only the disputed tax amount must be 
tendered to the county treasurer. The county treasurer argues that the statutory 
provision requires the taxpayer to pay interest on the disputed tax amount as 
well as the principal of the taxes.

[¶9]      In construing a 
statute, we must determine whether the statute is clear or 
ambiguous.

A 
"statute is unambiguous if its wording is such that reasonable persons are able 
to agree as to its meaning with consistenc[y] and predictability." 
Allied-Signal, [Inc. v. Wyoming State Board of Equalization,] 813 P.2d [214,] 
220 [(Wyo. 1991)]. "[A] statute is ambiguous only if it is found to be vague or 
uncertain and subject to varying interpretations." Id. at 219-20. "[W]hether an 
ambiguity exists in a statute is a matter of law to be determined by the court." 
Id. [at 220.]

Parker Land and Cattle 
Company v. Wyoming Game and Fish Commission, 845 P.2d 1040, 1043 (Wyo. 1993). If 
the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we apply the plain and 
ordinary meaning of the words and do not resort to rules of statutory 
construction. Id.

[¶10]   We hold that the language of § 
39-4-101(d) is clear and unambiguous. Reading the statutory provision as a 
whole, we conclude that the taxpayer is required to tender only the amount of 
the disputed taxes. In the context of § 39-4-101(d), the term "taxes" clearly 
means only the disputed tax amount without interest.1 The language of § 39-4-101(d) also 
provides that the "county treasurer shall deposit the amount under appeal in an 
interest bearing escrow account." The "amount under appeal" refers only to the 
disputed taxes. The interest is not under appeal.

[¶11]   Since the statutory provision 
contains the mandatory term "shall," the county treasurer must accept the 
payment of the taxes by Thunder Basin and deposit it into an escrow account. 
State by and through Department of Family Services v. Jennings, 818 P.2d 1149, 
1150 (Wyo. 1991). In reviewing administrative agency actions, this Court does 
not defer to the agency's conclusions of law. Instead, if the "correct rule of 
law has not been invoked and correctly applied, . . . the agency's errors are to 
be corrected." Devous v. Wyoming State Board of Medical Examiners, 845 P.2d 408, 
414 (Wyo. 1993). The county treasurer's action in refusing to accept Thunder 
Basin's payment of disputed taxes was not in accordance with law. In order to 
correct the county treasurer's error, we hold that Thunder Basin is required to 
tender only the amount of the disputed taxes to the county treasurer and that 
the county treasurer must accept the payment.

 

Footnotes

1 The county treasurer cites a number of 
statutes wherein she contends that the word "taxes" actually means taxes and 
interest. We refuse to establish a per se definition of taxes. Our decision is 
limited to the statutory provision at issue in this 
case.