Title: Schievella v. Department of Taxes

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Schievella v. Department of Taxes (99-385); 171 Vt. 591; 765 A.2d 479 

[Filed 23-Oct-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 1999-385

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 2000

Randall and Susan Schievella	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Washington Superior
                                       }	
                                       }
Vermont Department of Taxes	       }	DOCKET NO. 738-12-98 Wncv

                                                Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins 

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiffs Randall and Susan Schievella appeal from the Washington
  Superior Court's order  dismissing their complaint under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)
  for lack of standing.  The complaint challenged  the constitutionality of
  the income definition and eligibility requirements of the Homestead
  Property  Tax Income Sensitivity Adjustment, 32 V.S.A. §§ 6061 et seq, as
  arbitrary and discriminatory.  On  appeal, plaintiffs argue that they have
  standing to challenge provisions of the statute and that their  complaint
  states a claim upon which relief can be granted.  We affirm.  

       Plaintiffs filed a complaint in Washington Superior Court against the
  State of Vermont and the  Vermont Tax Commissioner seeking declaratory and
  injunctive relief.  According to their complaint,  plaintiffs are Vermont
  residents whose property qualifies as homestead property under  32 V.S.A. § 
  5401(7).  Effective January 1, 1998, Vermont adopted a statewide property
  tax as part of the funding  for local education, and further adopted a
  "circuit breaker" that limits the statewide property tax on  homestead
  property to 2% of income for taxpayers with household incomes under $75,000
  per year.   Plaintiffs challenged how income is computed for purposes of
  the 2% limit and further challenged  the $75,000 income limit on
  eligibility.  They state in their complaint: "If plaintiffs were allowed to 
  make use of the two percent exemption and were not taxed on income from
  United States  government securities they would be paying less of the
  statewide property tax."  This is the only  allegation that details how
  they are affected by the provisions of the statute they challenge.  

       The State subsequently filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
  complaint, arguing that the  complaint failed as a matter of law because
  plaintiffs had failed to allege facts sufficient to give them  standing to
  challenge the statute.  The trial court agreed and dismissed the complaint
  on the ground  that plaintiffs lacked standing.

       When reviewing a trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule
  12(b)(6), this Court  assumes that the factual allegations contained in the
  complaint are true.  See Association of Haystack 

  

  Property Owners, Inc. v. Sprague, 145 Vt. 443, 444,