Title: Cocina Superior, LLC v. Jefferson County Dept.  of Revenue

State: alabama

Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court

Document:

REL: 
03/15/2013 
Notice: T h i s 
o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l 
r e v i s i o n b e f o r e 
p u b l i c a t i o n i n 
t h e advance 
s h e e t s o f 
Southern Reporter. 
R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o 
n o t i f y t h e Reporter of Decisions, 
Alabama 
A p p e l l a t e 
C o u r t s , 
300 D e x t e r Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 
((334) 
2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f 
any t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n 
o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may be made 
b e f o r e t h e 
o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n 
Southern Reporter. 
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS 
OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 
2110807 
Cocina Superior, LLC 
v. 
Jefferson County Department of 
Revenue 
Appeal from Jefferson C i r c u i t Court 
(CV-11-01372) 
PITTMAN, Judge. 
C o c i n a 
S u p e r i o r , LLC ("the t a x p a y e r " ) , 
which owns a 
r e s t a u r a n t i n Birmingham t h a t s e l l s a l c o h o l i c beverages t o the 
p u b l i c , a p p e a l e d t o 
the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t f r o m two 
f i n a l 
assessments o f t h e J e f f e r s o n County Department o f Revenue 
2110807 
("the Department"), p u r s u a n t t o § 4 0 - 2 A - 7 ( b ) ( 5 ) b . 2 . ( i i i ) A l a . 
Code 1975, a p a r t o f the Alabama T a x p a y e r s ' B i l l o f R i g h t s and 
U n i f o r m Revenue P r o c e d u r e s A c t , § 40-2A-1 e t seq., A l a . Code 
1975. 
The assessments 
r e f l e c t e d 
t h a t , f o r the y e a r s 2008¬
2010, the t a x p a y e r owed $72,911.74 p u r s u a n t t o the "Alabama 
L i q u o r Tax," A c t No. 388, A l a . A c t s 1965, as amended by A c t 
No. 
747, 
A l a . A c t s 
1979, 
and $33,910.07 p u r s u a n t 
t o 
the 
"Alabama A d d i t i o n a l S a l e s Tax [ o f 3%] on A l c o h o l i c 
B e v e r a g e s , " 
A c t No. 545, A l a . A c t s 2001 
( e f f e c t i v e May 18, 2001). 
S e c t i o n 2 o f A c t No. 747, A l a . A c t s 1979, amended § 3 o f 
A c t No. 388, A l a . A c t s 1965, and l e v i e d a t a x on " [ w ] h i s k e y , 
g i n , brandy, rum, vodka, 
c o c k t a i l s , and a l l 
o t h e r 
a l c o h o l i c 
beverages e x c e p t m a l t b e v e r a g e s , s o l d , d i s t r i b u t e d , 
d e l i v e r e d , 
s t o r e d , o r t a k e n out o f s t o r a g e w i t h i n 
the county 
" 
On 
March 25, 
1986, 
the 
J e f f e r s o n 
County Commission adopted 
a 
r e s o l u t i o n 
t h a t s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t 
p a r t : 
"There 
i s hereby 
l e v i e d , 
f i x e d , 
and 
o r d a i n e d a 
l i c e n s e 
t a x on each p e r s o n 
s e l l i n g , 
d i s t r i b u t i n g , 
d e l i v e r i n g , 
s t o r i n g o r w i t h d r a w i n g f r o m s t o r a g e f o r 
r e t a i l w i t h i n the County o f 6% o f the g r o s s 
r e c e i p t s 
r e a l i z e d 
by 
such 
p e r s o n 
f r o m 
the 
d i s t r i b u t i o n , 
d e l i v e r y , 
s a l e , s t o r a g e or w i t h d r a w a l f r o m s t o r a g e 
i n the County o f w h i s k e y , g i n , brandy, rum, 
vodka, 
c o c k t a i l s , 
and 
a l l o t h e r 
a l c o h o l i c 
beverages 
and 
 
d r i n k s 
c o n t a i n i n g 
a l c o h o l 
e x c e p t m a l t 
b e v e r a g e s , 
wine, 
and 
o t h e r 
f e r m e n t e d 
b e v e r a g e s , 
s o l d 
or 
2 
2110807 
d i s t r i b u t e d , 
s t o r e d or t a k e n out o f s t o r a g e i n t h e 
c o u n t y . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
S e c t i o n 3 o f A c t No. 545, A l a . 
A c t s 2001, 
p r o v i d e s , i n p e r t i n e n t 
p a r t : 
" N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g 
any p r o v i s i o n o f law and p u r s u a n t 
t o 
S e c t i o n 104 o f t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f Alabama o f 
1901, 
t h e r e i s imposed, i n a d d i t i o n t o a l l o t h e r 
t a x e s , 
i n c l u d i n g , b u t not l i m i t e d t o , 
m u n i c i p a l 
g r o s s r e c e i p t s l i c e n s e t a x e s , a t h r e e p e r c e n t s a l e s 
t a x on a l c o h o l i c beverages 
s o l d from 
r e s t a u r a n t s 
t h a t a r e l i c e n s e d by t h e A l c o h o l i c Beverage C o n t r o l 
B o a r d . " 
(Emphasis added.) 
In t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t , the p a r t i e s f i l e d c r o s s - m o t i o n s f o r 
a summary judgment, a g r e e i n g 
t h a t 
t h e r e 
were no 
d i s p u t e d 
i s s u e s 
of f a c t and t h a t t h e i s s u e 
t o be 
r e s o l v e d was a 
q u e s t i o n o f law f o r t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t . 
The t a x p a y e r argued 
t h a t the a p p l i c a b l e l e g i s l a t i o n c a l l e d f o r t h e i m p o s i t i o n of 
a 
t a x on t h e g r o s s 
r e c e i p t s 
d e r i v e d 
from 
t h e 
s a l e 
o f 
" a l c o h o l i c 
b e v e r a g e s , " 
b u t , 
i t s a i d , 
t h e 
Department's 
assessments were e r r o n e o u s l y based upon t h e t a x p a y e r ' s g r o s s 
s a l e s of mixed d r i n k s 
t h a t were composed o f b o t h a l c o h o l i c 
beverages and n o n a l c o h o l i c m i x i n g agents such as c o l a s , sodas, 
and 
j u i c e s . 
The t a x p a y e r a s s e r t e d t h a t i t s i n t e r n a l p o l i c y 
and 
p r o c e d u r e d i c t a t e d t h a t each mixed d r i n k 
c o n t a i n 
1.25 
3 
2110807 
ounces o f a l c o h o l , and, i t 
m a i n t a i n e d , t h e t a x e s were due o n l y 
on t h e a l c o h o l p o r t i o n o f t h e mixed d r i n k s , e x c l u s i v e o f any 
n o n a l c o h o l i c m i x i n g agent. 
The 
t a x p a y e r 
a l s o 
argued 
t h a t 
t h e 
Department's 
assessments d e n i e d i t 
due p r o c e s s and e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n o f 
t h e 
law because, 
i t s a i d , i t s r e s t a u r a n t 
i s a more u p s c a l e 
e s t a b l i s h m e n t w i t h h i g h e r overhead expenses than many o t h e r 
f a c i l i t i e s t h a t s e l l a l c o h o l i c beverages and i t 
i s , t h e r e f o r e , 
r e q u i r e d t o charge h i g h e r p r i c e s and, c o n s e q u e n t l y , pay more 
t a x e s f o r 
t h e mixed d r i n k s i t s e l l s . 
The 
Department 
argued 
t h a t 
t h e 
p l a i n 
meaning 
o f 
" a l c o h o l i c 
b e v e r a g e " 
i s a 
beverage 
c o n t a i n i n g 
a l c o h o l , 
i r r e s p e c t i v e 
o f 
whether 
t h e 
beverage 
a l s o 
c o n t a i n s 
n o n a l c o h o l i c m i x i n g a g e n t s . I n s u p p o r t o f t h a t argument, t h e 
Department 
c i t e d t h e i n c l u s i o n o f t h e p h r a s e " c o c k t a i l s , and 
a l l o t h e r a l c o h o l i c beverages and d r i n k s c o n t a i n i n g a l c o h o l , " 
i n t h e J e f f e r s o n County Commission's 
r e s o l u t i o n p r o m u l g a t e d 
p u r s u a n t t o 
A c t 
No. 747, w h i c h i n c l u s i o n , t h e Department s a i d , 
i n d i c a t e s an i n t e n t t o c o n s i d e r c o c k t a i l s and mixed d r i n k s as 
" a l c o h o l i c 
b e v e r a g e s . " 
The 
Department 
a l s o 
c i t e d 
t h e 
d e f i n i t i o n o f " a l c o h o l i c b e v e r a g e s " i n T i t l e 28, C h a p t e r 3 o f 
4 
2110807 
the Alabama Code 1975, 
which 
r e l a t e s t o the " r e g u l a t i o n 
and 
c o n t r o l 
of 
a l c o h o l i c 
beverages 
i n 
wet 
c o u n t i e s , " i . e . , 
c o u n t i e s 
i n 
which 
the 
s a l e 
of 
a l c o h o l i c 
beverages 
i s 
p e r m i t t e d . 
S e c t i o n 28-3-1, A l a . Code 
1975, 
p r o v i d e s , i n 
p e r t i n e n t p a r t : 
"The 
f o l l o w i n g words or p h r a s e s , whenever t h e y 
appear i n t h i s c h a p t e r , and 
i n A l c o h o l i c Beverage 
L i c e n s i n g 
Code, 
b e i n g 
A c t 
No. 
80-529, 
A c t s 
of 
Alabama, 1980, 
as amended, a p p e a r i n g as Chapter 
3A, 
T i t l e 
28, 
as amended, and 
the Alabama T a b l e Wine 
A c t , 
b e i n g A c t 80-382, A c t s 
of Alabama 
1980, 
as 
amended, 
a p p e a r i n g 
as 
Chapter 
7, 
T i t l e 
28, 
as 
amended, 
u n l e s s 
the 
c o n t e x t 
c l e a r l y 
i n d i c a t e s 
o t h e r w i s e , 
s h a l l have the meaning a s c r i b e d t o them 
i n t h i s 
s e c t i o n : 
" ( 1 ) 
A l c o h o l i c 
b e v e r a g e s . 
Any 
a l c o h o l i c , 
s p i r i t u o u s , v i n o u s , 
fermented, 
or o t h e r a l c o h o l i c beverage, or c o m b i n a t i o n 
of 
l i q u o r s 
and 
mixed 
l i q u o r , 
a p a r t 
of  
which i s s p i r i t u o u s , v i n o u s , fermented, 
or  
o t h e r w i s e 
a l c o h o l i c , 
and 
a l l d r i n k s 
or 
 
d r i n k a b l e l i q u i d s , p r e p a r a t i o n s or m i x t u r e s  
i n t e n d e d 
f o r 
beverage 
p u r p o s e s , 
which 
 
c o n t a i n o n e - h a l f of one p e r c e n t or more of  
a l c o h o l 
by 
volume, 
and 
s h a l l 
i n c l u d e 
l i q u o r , b e e r , and wine." 
(Emphasis added.) 
On 
May 
6, 
2012, 
the 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t e n t e r e d 
a 
p a r t i a l 
summary judgment i n f a v o r of the Department on the i s s u e of 
the t a x p a y e r ' s l i a b i l i t y t o pay the assessments. 
The 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t s t a t e d : 
5 
2110807 
"[The 
t a x p a y e r ] argues t h a t the County has 
no 
r i g h t 
t o 
impose 
the 
t a x 
on 
the 
n o n - a l c o h o l i c 
' m i x i n g 
a g e n t s ' w h i c h are mixed w i t h the a l c o h o l t o 
c r e a t e 
c o c k t a i l s and 
o t h e r mixed d r i n k s . I t says t h a t 
the 
t a x e s s h o u l d be 
on o n l y the 
1.25 
ounces of 
a l c o h o l 
c o n t a i n e d 
i n s a i d d r i n k s . 
"The 
C o u r t d i s a g r e e s . Words u s e d i n a 
s t a t u t e 
must be 
g i v e n 
t h e i r n a t u r a l , 
p l a i n , o r d i n a r y 
and 
commonly 
u n d e r s t o o d 
meaning, 
and 
where 
p l a i n 
language i s used, a c o u r t i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t 
language t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . IMED Corp. v.  
Systems Eng'g A s s o c s . Corp., 
602 
So. 
2d 
344, 
346 
( A l a . 
1992). 
"The 
C o u r t must presume t h a t 
the l e g i s l a t u r e 
knew the e x a c t meaning of the words i t used i n 
the 
s t a t u t e . 
Our 
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s 
c e r t a i n l y knew 
the 
meaning 
of 
' c o c k t a i l s , and 
a l l o t h e r 
a l c o h o l i c 
beverages and 
d r i n k s 
c o n t a i n i n g 
a l c o h o l . ' That i s 
what t h e y t a x e d , and not j u s t the a l c o h o l 
c o n t a i n e d 
w i t h i n 
such 
d r i n k s . 
W h i l e 
the 
language 
i n 
the 
second s t a t u t e 
i s not 
as 
s p e c i f i c , 
i t c l e a r l y i s 
based upon the 
f i r s t 
s t a t u t e 
and 
the same r u l i n g 
must a p p l y t o b o t h . 
"The 
t a x p a y e r ' s 
n e x t 
argument 
i s 
t h a t 
the 
assessments v i o l a t e i t s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s t o 
due 
p r o c e s s 
and 
e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n . 
I t says 
t h a t 
o t h e r 
r e s t a u r a n t s 
and 
b a r s can 
s e l l 
d r i n k s 
f o r l e s s 
and 
t h a t i t would be u n f a i r t o t a x [ t h e t a x p a y e r ] on 
the 
h i g h e r 
p r i c e d 
d r i n k . Under 
the 
r e l e v a n t 
s t a t u t e , 
[ t h e t a x p a y e r ] i s t r e a t e d the same as o t h e r 
s e l l e r s 
of a l c o h o l i c d r i n k s . They are a l l charged s a l e s 
t a x 
on the b a s i s of g r o s s r e c e i p t s from the 
r e t a i l 
s a l e 
of 
a l c o h o l i c b e v e r a g e s . 
T h i s 
i s 
not 
u n f a i r 
and 
c e r t a i n l y does not 
v i o l a t e [ t h e t a x p a y e r ' s ] r i g h t s 
t o due p r o c e s s or e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n , under e i t h e r the 
C o n s t i t u t i o n 
of 
the 
S t a t e 
of Alabama 
or 
of 
the 
U n i t e d 
S t a t e s . " 
6 
2110807 
F o l l o w i n g the Department's r e c a l c u l a t i o n of p a s t - d u e t a x e s , 
p e n a l t i e s , and i n t e r e s t owed by the t a x p a y e r f o r a time w i t h i n 
the a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t o r y l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d , the c i r c u i t c o u r t 
e n t e r e d a f i n a l judgment on May 
8, 2012, d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t the 
t a x p a y e r owed $99,876.01. 
The t a x p a y e r t i m e l y a p p e a l e d . 
We 
r e v i e w a summary judgment de novo, a p p l y i n g the same 
s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w as the 
t r i a l 
c o u r t a p p l i e d . 
Turner 
v. 
 
Westhampton C o u r t , L.L.C., 903 So. 2d 82, 87 ( A l a . 2004) . 
In 
a d d i t i o n , the i s s u e s r a i s e d by the t a x p a y e r p r e s e n t q u e s t i o n s 
of law f o r w h i c h our r e v i e w i s de novo. 
E s p i n o z a v. Rudolph, 
46 So. 3d 403, 
412 
( A l a . 2010). 
" ' I n 
d e t e r m i n i n g 
the 
meaning 
of 
a 
s t a t u t e , 
[ t r i a l 
and 
a p p e l l a t e 
c o u r t s ] 
l o o k [ ] t o the p l a i n meaning of the words as 
w r i t t e n by the l e g i s l a t u r e . As [our supreme 
c o u r t has] 
s a i d : 
II 
I 
II 'Words used i n a s t a t u t e must 
be 
g i v e n 
t h e i r 
n a t u r a l , 
p l a i n , 
o r d i n a r y , and commonly u n d e r s t o o d 
meaning, and where p l a i n language 
i s 
used 
a 
c o u r t 
i s bound 
t o 
i n t e r p r e t 
t h a t language t o mean 
e x a c t l y 
what 
i t s a y s . 
I f 
the 
language 
of 
the 
s t a t u t e 
i s 
unambiguous, 
then 
t h e r e 
i s 
no 
room 
f o r 
j u d i c i a l 
c o n s t r u c t i o n 
and the c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d 
i n t e n t 
of the l e g i s l a t u r e must be 
g i v e n 
e f f e c t . ' " 
7 
2110807 
" ' B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d v. N i e l s e n , 714 
So. 2d 293, 296 
( A l a . 1998) 
( q u o t i n g IMED  
Corp. v. Systems Eng'g A s s o c s . Corp., 
602 
So. 2d 344, 346 
( A l a . 1992)) . ... 
[ O ] n l y 
i f 
t h e r e i s no 
r a t i o n a l way t o 
i n t e r p r e t 
t h e words as s t a t e d 
w i l l we 
l o o k 
beyond 
t h o s e 
words 
t o 
d e t e r m i n e 
l e g i s l a t i v e 
i n t e n t . To a p p l y a d i f f e r e n t p o l i c y would 
t u r n 
t h i s C o u r t i n t o a l e g i s l a t i v e 
body, 
and d o i n g t h a t , of c o u r s e , would be u t t e r l y 
i n c o n s i s t e n t 
w i t h 
the 
d o c t r i n e 
of 
s e p a r a t i o n of powers. 
See Ex p a r t e 
T.B., 
698 So. 2d 127, 130 ( A l a . 1997). 
" '  
II 
I 
I 
"DeKalb County LP Gas Co. v. Suburban Gas, I n c . , 729 
So. 2d 270, 275-77 ( A l a . 1998).
2 
"
2As e x p l a i n e d i n DeKalb County LP Gas, s u p r a , 
t h i s C o u r t ' s a p p l i c a t i o n of the p l a i n - m e a n i n g r u l e 
i s 
g u i d e d 
by 
A r t . 
I I I , § 
42, 
of 
the 
Alabama 
C o n s t i t u t i o n 
of 
1901, 
w h i c h 
p r o v i d e s 
f o r 
the 
s e p a r a t i o n of powers between 
t h r e e departments of 
s t a t e government. 
See 
g e n e r a l l y Marc James A y e r s , 
Unpacking Alabama's P l a i n - M e a n i n g R u l e of S t a t u t o r y  
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , 67 A l a . Law. 31, 32 (Jan. 2006)." 
Munnerlyn v. Alabama Dep't of C o r r . , 946 So. 2d 436, 438-39 
( A l a . 2006). 
The c i r c u i t c o u r t c o r r e c t l y h e l d t h a t the p l a i n 
meaning 
o f 
" a l c o h o l i c 
b e v e r a g e " 
i s a beverage 
c o n t a i n i n g 
a l c o h o l . 
The 
c i r c u i t 
c o u r t 
a l s o 
c o r r e c t l y 
h e l d 
t h a t 
the 
Department's assessments d i d not v i o l a t e the t a x p a y e r ' s r i g h t 
8 
2110807 
t o 
due 
p r o c e s s 
or 
e q u a l 
p r o t e c t i o n 
of 
the 
law. 
E v e r y 
e s t a b l i s h m e n t t h a t s e l l s a d r i n k c o n t a i n i n g a l c o h o l i s t r e a t e d 
the same: each pays a g r o s s - r e c e i p t s 
t a x amounting 
t o s i x 
p e r c e n t o f i t s s a l e s 
o f such 
d r i n k s . 
The 
f a c t t h a t 
one 
p u r v e y o r charges more f o r i t s 
mixed d r i n k s -- and t h e r e b y pays 
more t a x i n an a b s o l u t e sense -- i s a consequence of 
t h a t 
p u r v e y o r ' s p r i c i n g p o l i c y (a m a t t e r s o l e l y w i t h i n the c o n t r o l 
of the p u r v e y o r ) and not an u n f a i r a t t r i b u t e of the system o f 
t a x a t i o n , which t a x e s a l l 
p u r v e y o r s a t the same t a x r a t e . 
See 
 
C i t y of Birmingham v. S t a c y W i l l i a m s Co., 356 So. 2d 608, 
611 
( A l a . 
1978) 
("[T]he 
c l a s s 
composed 
of 
w h o l e s a l e 
t o b a c c o 
merchants i s not d e n i e d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n o f laws because the 
c l a s s as a whole i s t r e a t e d 
f a i r l y 
a l i k e ; no member of the 
c l a s s i s a l l o w e d t o deduct the s a l e s t a x on t o b a c c o ... 
from 
i t s g r o s s r e c e i p t s 
" ) . 
The judgment o f the J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . 
AFFIRMED. 
Thompson, P.J., and Thomas, Moore, and Donaldson, J J . , 
c o n c u r . 
9