Case Title: WEXPRO CO. v. BRIMHALL

Citation: 

Docket Number: 98-136

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
WEXPRO CO. v. BRIMHALL2000 WY 1287 P.3d 42Case Number: 98-136Decided: 06/02/2000Supreme Court of Wyoming
 
WEXPRO 
COMPANY, Appellant (Petitioner/Plaintiff),

 v.

TERRY BRIMHALL, in her 
official capacity as the UINTA COUNTY TREASURER; THE BOARD OF COUNTY 
COMMISSIONERS FOR THE COUNTY OF UINTA, Appellees (Respondents/Defendants). 

Certified Questions from 
the District Court of Uinta County, Honorable John D. Troughton, Judge. 

Representing 
Appellant: Lawrence J. Wolfe of 
Holland & Hart, Cheyenne, Wyoming.Representing Appellee: Michael 
L. Greer, Uinta County and Prosecuting Attorney, Evanston, 
Wyoming.

Before 
LEHMAN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and TAYLOR,* JJ.

GOLDEN, 
Justice.

[¶1] Pursuant to 
W.R.A.P. 11, the District Court for the Third Judicial District, in and for 
Uinta County, Wyoming, certifies two questions for resolution concerning whether 
Texaco, Inc. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 845 P.2d 398 (Wyo. 1993), and Thunder 
Basin Coal Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 896 P.2d 1336 (Wyo. 1995), bar 
refund claims based on ad valorem taxes calculated by offsetting overpayments 
and underpayments between tax years and, if they are not barred, whether a 
county may refuse to offset such payments.

[¶2] In its 
brief, Appellant Wexpro Company informs us that the issues and facts in this 
case are also present in Wyo. State Dept. of Rev. v. Amoco Prod. Co., No. 98-65 
(Wyo. May 31, 2000). In Amoco, we held that "[o]ffsets or refunds pursuant to 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-2-214(e) are not applicable to audits commenced before the 
effective date of the statute." Id., slip op. at 7 (citing Thunder Basin Coal 
Co., 896 P.2d  at 1341, and Texaco, Inc., 845 P.2d at 402).

[¶3] We agree 
with Wexpro's analysis of Amoco and will apply that holding to answer the 
certified questions. Therefore, we answer the first certified question in the 
affirmative; Wexpro's refund claims are barred. We need not answer the second 
certified question.

CERTIFIED 
QUESTIONS

I. Are Wexpro's 
claims, that refunds of ad valorem taxes must be calculated by offsetting 
overpayments and underpayments between tax years and tax districts, barred under 
the decisions in Texaco Inc. v. State Board of Equalization and Thunder Basin 
Coal Company v. Board of Equalization because Wexpro's audit was commenced prior 
to March 11, 1991, the effective date of W.S. 39-2-214?

II. If Wexpro's 
claims are not barred, is the County required to offset overpayments and 
underpayments between tax years and tax districts in calculating Wexpro's 
entitlement to ad valorem tax refunds?

[¶4] These 
questions encompass all of the issues in the case, and the parties do not 
suggest any additional issues.

FACTS

[¶5] In a 
W.R.A.P. 11 certification of questions of law, we rely entirely upon the factual 
determinations made in the trial court. Allhusen v. State of Wyoming Mental 
Health Prof. Licensing Bd., 898 P.2d 878, 881 (Wyo. 1995). The following 
statement of facts was submitted by the district court in its order certifying 
the questions of law:

Wexpro is a significant 
oil and gas producer in southwest Wyoming. At issue in this case are ad valorem 
taxes (also called gross products taxes) which are assessed each year by Uinta 
County based on Wexpro's prior year's production. Wexpro's 1984-1988 oil and gas 
production in Uinta, Sweetwater and Lincoln counties was audited by the 
Department of Audit. The audit was engaged on June 21, 1990, and a final 
assessment letter was issued by the Department of Revenue ("DOR") on February 3, 
1994. The assessment was appealed to the State Board of Equalization ("State 
Board"), which issued an initial decision on February 24, 1995. That decision 
was interlocutory and required Wexpro and the DOR to make certain calculations 
and report back to the State Board. The State Board's final decision was issued 
on November 14, 1995.

[¶6] In arriving 
at its final decision, the State Board required the DOR and Wexpro to develop 
joint schedules for all of the wells and each of the years. In those schedules 
the DOR agreed to net overpayments and underpayments between years for severance 
tax purposes. The State Board approved the schedules in the final 
order.

[¶7] The State 
Board's decision ordered Uinta and Sweetwater Counties to refund money to Wexpro 
for overpaid gross products tax for tax years 1985 through 1989 (production 
years 1984-198[8]). The Uinta County Treasurer calculated the amount of the 
refund and paid to Wexpro $144,002.99. Wexpro believes the refund was calculated 
without regard to applicable statutes and case law and that Wexpro is owed an 
additional amount of $48,238.06. Wexpro's objections were made known to the 
Treasurer. The Uinta County Board of County Commissioners ratified the decision 
of the Treasurer, in an action that has been reported to the Appellant but not 
documented. Such ratification occurred because W.S. 39-2-214(e) appears to 
require the County Board to make the final decision on 
refunds.

[¶8] This case 
arose by Wexpro's filing of a Petition for Administrative Action and a Complaint 
for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Complaint"). The Complaint challenges 
the method by which the Uinta County Treasurer calculated the amount of an ad 
valorem tax refund due to Wexpro. The Appellees filed an Answer and Counter 
Petition for Declaratory Judgment. The Appellees filed a Motion to Dismiss and 
supporting brief, the Appellant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Brief 
and the Court determined, after review of the record, that it would certify the 
case to the Wyoming Supreme Court.

DISCUSSION

[¶9] Wexpro 
contends that its claims for ad valorem tax refunds must be calculated by 
netting overpayments and underpayments between tax years within an audit period 
and between tax districts within the county. Wexpro relies on Kunard v. Enron 
Oil & Gas Co., 869 P.2d 132 (Wyo. 1994), and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-2-214(e) 
to support its position, while attempting to distinguish this case from Texaco, 
Inc. v. Wyo. State Bd. of Equalization, 845 P.2d 398 (Wyo. 1993), and Thunder 
Basin Coal Co. v. Wyo. State Bd. of Equalization, 896 P.2d 1336 (Wyo. 
1995).

[¶10] Wexpro 
suggests that Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-2-214(e) is remedial in nature and, when read 
in conjunction with the policies announced in Kunard, allows netting of 
overpayments and underpayments between tax years within an audit period. Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 39-2-214(e) (Michie 1997)1 provides:

The taxpayer is entitled 
to receive an offsetting credit for any overpaid gross product or severance tax 
identified by an audit that is within the scope of the audit period, without 
regard to the limitation period for requesting refunds. In calculating interest 
and penalty, the department or board of county commissioners shall first compute 
a net deficiency amount after subtracting any offsetting credit and then 
calculate any interest and penalty due.

[¶11] If we were 
to consider this statutory language and the remedial nature of the statute, 
without more, we might agree with Wexpro's contention that its refund claims are 
not barred. However, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-2-214 was promulgated in 1991. When it 
enacted the statute, as Section 1 of Chapter 257, the legislature included a 
second section to explain its intent. That section requires that "[a]ny audit or 
examination which has not commenced as of the effective date of this act, 
conducted by or contracted for by a county, shall be subject to the provisions 
of this act." 1991 Wyo. Sess. Laws Ch. 257, § 2 (emphasis 
added).

[¶12] The 
effective date of the act was March 11, 1991. Id.; Texaco, 845 P.2d  at 401. The 
audit of Wexpro began on June 21, 1990. Therefore, Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-2-214(e) 
(Michie 1997) does not apply to Wexpro's refund claims, and its claims are 
barred. See also, Texaco, 845 P.2d  at 401 ("We conclude that it is unmistakably 
clear that the Legislature intended for § 39-2-214(e) to apply prospectively 
only."); Thunder Basin Coal Co., 896 P.2d  at 1341 ("Thunder Basin is not 
entitled to receive an offset or refund pursuant to Wyo. Stat. § 39-2-214(e) 
(1994) because the audit was commenced before the effective date of the 
statute."); Amoco Production Co., slip op. at 7 ("Offsets or refunds pursuant to 
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-2-214(e) are not applicable to audits commenced before the 
effective date of the statute.").

CONCLUSION

[¶13] Wexpro's 
claims "that refunds of ad valorem taxes must be calculated by offsetting 
overpayments and underpayments between tax years and tax districts" are barred 
under our previous decisions because Wexpro's audit was commenced prior to March 
11, 1991, the effective date of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 39-2-214(e) (Michie 1997), the 
statute which allows for offsetting of payments.

 [¶14] THOMAS, Justice, 
dissenting.

I must dissent 
from the majority resolution of this case in accordance with the views I have 
expressed in Department of Revenue v. Amoco Production Co., 7 P.2d 35 (Wyo. 
2000) (No. 98-65, decided 5/31/00). The majority has resolved this case 
consistently with the resolution of Amoco Production Co. I would reach a 
contrary result consistent with the views expressed in my concurring and 
dissenting opinion in that case. Consequently, I would answer the first 
certified question in this case, "No." That would lead to consideration of the 
second certified question, which I would answer "Yes."

Footnotes

 1 Repealed by 
1998 Wyo. Sess. Laws Ch. 5, § 4.