### TE X A S C OU R T O F A P P EA LS , TH IRD D IS TRIC T, A T A U ST IN

NO. 03-0 8 -00 149 -CV

Sout he r n P las ti c s, Inc . , A ppe lla nt

v. Susa n Co m bs, Co m pt r oll e r of P ublic Ac c ount s o f the St at e of Te xa s, and Greg A bbott, Attor ney Ge neral of the State of Texas , Appellees

F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TRAVIS COUNTY , 126TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1- GN-06- 0000 47 , HO NORAB LE MARGARET A. COO P ER , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
Th is is an a

pp e a l fr om a summa

ry jud g me nt in fa

vo r of the Com ptr oll e r i n a

su it t o
re c ov e r a sa le s tax re fu

nd . We wi ll a ff

ir m th e jud g me nt.
BACK GR OUND At rele vant times, appellant Sout hern Pl astics, I nc., has ope rate d a plant nea r Kilg ore, Texas, where it manufac tures plasti c cl o s u re s , such as c aps and lids, which it sells to companies that manufa c tu

r e a n d s ell bever ag es, per sonal ca re pr oducts, and other

household products. Southern Pla sti c s ma

nu fa c tur e s th e pla sti c c los ur e s b y loa din g ra

w m a te ri a ls, su c h a s r e sin s and c olo ra nts , int o mo ldi ngma c hin e s, he a tin g the m, a nd inj e c tin g the m in to mo ld s. Southe rn Pla sti c s a lso manufa cture s liners for the insides of some of the plastic closures. I t bonds a ty pe of pape r ca lled “pulp” to foil or wax paper in a machine called a “laminator,” uses a die to cut or punch out piece s of the laminate d paper

in the siz e and sha

pe of the closure, a

nd then inserts the li ner into the c losure.2 The Comptroller conduc t ed a s al es t ax audit of Sout hern Plastics for the per iod betwee n November 1, 1999, and October 31, 2002. Duringthis period, Southern Plastics contrac ted wi th t he City of Ki lg or e to p e ri od icall y

re mov e and

dis po se of

c e rt a in w a ste fr om i ts p lant. I t is
un dis pu te d th a t th e re we re e sse nti a lly fo ur so ur c e s or cate g or ie s o f w a ste re mov e d b y the City or its
su bc on tr a c tor s:

• Waste from the p ro ce s s o f m anufa cturingthe plastic closure s and liners, includingscra p plastic, remna

nts of pulp, a

nd “skele tons” or “we bbing” of the laminated sheets fr om which the closure liners wer e punche d.

• Was te fr om d isc ard e d w ra pp ingor pack aging ma te ri a ls ( e .g ., c ard bo ard bo xes a nd c or e s, wooden pa llets, bandi n g, an d shrink wra p) it rec eived with incoming shipments of raw mate ri a ls.

• Wa s t e f

r o m d a m a g e d o r u nu s a

b l e w r a p p i n g o r p a c k a g i n g m a t e r i a l s u s e d t o p r e p ar e its finished products for shipment to customers, such as damag ed boxes, damag ed pallets, a nd excess shrink wra

p.

• Waste from Southern Plastics’s of fice s, including shr edded pa per a nd car dboard boxes that held copy pap er , an d wa s te from f ood and beve rag es consumed by employ ees in a

brea k room are a.
Southe rn Pla sti c s c omm ing le d th e se c a te g or ie s o f w a ste be fo re re mov a l. I t pa id a sin g le c ha rg e to the City fo r r e mov a l of the c omm ing le d wa ste that did no t di ff e re nti a te a mon g the re lativ e a mou nts
c on tr ibute d f

ro m e a c h of the fo ur wa ste c a te g or ie s. Southe rn Pla sti c s a lso pa id s a le s tax on th e fu ll amount of ea ch such c harg e duringthe audit per iod. These sa les tax pay ments totaled $4,872.78 for the audit per iod.

S ub seq uently , So uth e rn

Pla sti c s r e qu e ste d f

ro m th e Com

ptr oll e r a re fu nd of a ll the sales taxes it had paid for the City ’s waste remova l service s during the audit per iod. I t claimedBe cause the intere sts of the Comptroller and the Attorne y Gene ral in the litigation align, 1 we here afte r ref

er to the m c ollectively as t h e “ Comptroller.” See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 112.053 (We st 20 08 ) (r e qu ir ing the Com ptr oll e r and

the Attor ne y Ge ne ra l to be name d a s d e fe nd ants in s uit broug ht pursuant to chapte r 112 of the tax code)

. 3 the taxes had bee n paid i n err or because the waste w as “industrial solid waste” for whic h remova l costs are not subject to the sales tax. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 151.0048(a )(3) (b) ( West 2008); 34 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.356(a) (3)( E) (2009) (Tex. Comptroller of P ub. Acc ts.). The Comptroller denied the r equeste d ref

und and Southern P lastics’s ensuing motion for re hear ing. Souther n Plastics then filed suit under ch ap t er 1 1 2 o f t he tax code see king a ref und. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. §§ 112.151-.155 (West 2008). I t also asserte d a cla im under sec tion 2001.038 of the administrative proce dures a ct for a

decla ration that the Comptroller’s inter pretation of its rule defining “industrial solid waste” wa s itself a “ru l e” u n d er t h e APA and inva lid because the Comptroller had fa iled to comply

with the APA’s rulemaking r equire ments in adopting it. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 2001.038 (West 2008).

S o u t h ern Pl astics and the Comptroller f il e d c r o s s - mo ti o n s f

o r s u mm ar y ju d g me nt 1 under the “tra ditional” standard that joined issue on whether So uthern Plastics was e ntitled to a ref und. I n its mot ion, Southern Plastics also soug ht summary judgme nt on its declaratory -judg ment claim under

the APA. The district c ourt g rante d the C omptroller’s summary -judg ment motion, d e n ie d So u th e r nPl a s ti c s ’ s mo ti o n , an d

r e n d e r e d f in a l j u d g me n t f

o r th e Co mp tr o ll e r

a s to a ll of Southern Plastics’s claims. This appea l followed.4 AN AL YSI S I n thre e iss ue s on

a pp e a l, S ou the rn

Pla sti c s c on te nd s th a t th e dis tr ic t c ourt e rr e d in
re nd e ri ng summa

ry jud g me nt f

or the Com ptr oll e r o n So uth e rn

Pla sti c s’ s r e fu

nd and APAc la ims

and in d e nyingit s umm ary

jud g me nt o n th os e c la ims

. Stand ard of review

We reviewthe district court’s summar y judgme nt de novo. ValenceOperating Co.

v . D or se tt , 1 64 S.W. 3d

65 6, 66 1 ( Te x. 20 05); Pr ov ide nt L ife& Ac c ide nt I ns . Co . v . Kn ott , 128 S.W .3d 211, 215 (Tex. 2003). Summary judgme nt is proper when there are no disput ed issues of mater ial fac t and the movant is entitled to judgme nt as a matter of law . Tex. R. C iv. P. 166a(c). When review ing a

summary judgme nt, we take as t rue all evidenc e favorable to the non-movant, and we indulg e eve ry rea sonable infere nce a nd resolve a

ny doubts in the non-movant’s favor. Valence Operating Co. , 1 64 S.W. 3d a t 66 1; Kno tt , 128 S.W .3d at 215. When parties file c ross-motions for summary judgme nt on overlappingissues and t h e t r i a l c o u rtg r an t s o n e m o t i o nan d d e n i e s t h e o th e r , ana p p e l l a t e c o u rts h o u l d

r e v i e w t h e s u m m ar

yjudgme nt evidence supporting both motions and d et er m ine all questions prese nted. FM Pr op s. Op e ra tin g Co . v . Ci ty

of A us tin , 22 S.W. 3d 86 8, 87 2 (T e x. 20 00 ). Th e a pp e llate cou rt “sh ou ld rende r the judg ment that the trial cour t should have re ndere d.” Id. Our revie w of the district c ourt’s summary -judg ment ruling s turns o n const ruction of the tax c ode and the Comptroller’s rules. Statutory construction pre sents a question of law that
we revie w de novo. See State v . Shumake , 199 S.W .3d 279, 284 (Tex. 2006). Our primar y objective in statutory

construction is to g ive ef fec t to the leg islature’s intent. Id . We se e k that inte nt “ fi rs t5

and fore most” in the statutory text
. Le x ing ton In s. Co. v . S

tra y ho rn , 209 S.W .3d 83, 85 (Tex. 2006). We rely on the plain meaningof the text, unless a differ ent meanin g i s s u p plied by leg islative definition or i s appar ent from context, or unl ess s uch a construction leads to absurd re sults. City of Rock wall v. Hughes , 2 46 S.W. 3d 62 1, 62 5- 26 (T e x. 20 08 ); see Tex. Gov’ t Code Ann. § 311.011 (West 2005) (“[ w]ords and phrase s shall be re ad in context and construed a ccor ding to the r ules of g rammar

and common usag e”) . Howeve r, with reg ard to a statute that an a g ency

is charg ed with e nforc ing, we g ive “ser ious c onsideration” to the ag ency ’s construction of it, so lo n g as t hat
c on str uc tio n is re a so na

ble and c on sis te nt w iththe statutory lan gua g e , a nd thi s is pa

rt ic ula rl y true whe n the statute involves compl ex subject matter w ithin the ag ency ’s ar ea of expertise. See First Am. Tit le Ins. Co. v. Combs , 2 58 S.W. 3d 62 7, 63 2 ( Te x. 20 08 ); c

f. R y lan de r v. F

ish e r Co ntr ols Int’l, Inc ., 45 S.W. 3d

29 1, 30 2 ( Te x. Ap p. —Aus tin 20 01 , n o p e t.) (court s “do no t de fe r t o
a dmi nis tr a tiv e int e rp re tatio n in re g ard to q ue sti on s w hic h do not l ie wi thi n a dmi nis tr a tiv e e xpe rt ise or dea l with a nontechnica l question of law”)

.

“We construe administrative rules, wh i ch have the same for ce a s statutes, in the
same manne r as statutes.” Rodriguez v. Serv ice Lloyds Ins. Co. , 997 S.W .2d 248, 254 (Tex. 1999). “Unless the rule is a

mbiguous, we follow the rule’ s clea r languag e.” Id. Howeve r, we defe r to an
a g e nc y ’s int e rp re tatio n w he re the re is v a g ue ne ss, a mbi g uit y , o r r oo m f

or po lic y de te rm inatio ns in the re g ulatio n— i.e ., un le ss t he a dmi nis tr a tiv e int e r

p r e t a t i o n i s “ p l a i n l y

e r r o n e o u s o r

i n c o ns ist e nt w ith the re g ulation.” See id. at 2 5 4 -5 5 (q u o t i n g Public Util. Comm’n v. Gulf States Util. Co. , 809 S.W .2d 201, 207 (Tex. 1991)).6

Re fund c lai m As t h e p l ai n t i ff i na t a x r e f

u n d ca s e, S o u t h ernP l as t i cs h adt h e b u rd en o f p ro v i n g, by a pre pondera

nce of the evidenc e, t hat it is entitl ed to a r efund of the sales tax it paid on the City ’s waste re moval service s beca use those ser

vices we re not subjec t to tax
. GA TX Te rm ina ls Corp. v. Rylander , 78 S.W .3d 630, 634-35 (Te x . App.—Austin 2002, no pet.). In its first issue, Southern Plastics argues that it is entitled to sum mary judgme nt on its ref und claim “[ b]ecause the uncontrove rted e vidence shows that all bu t a d e mi nimis portion of Appellant’s waste me ets the Comptroller’s definition of industrial solid waste.” A lternatively , in its t hird issue, Southern Plastics
c on te nd s th a t th e Com

ptr oll e r d id n ot e sta

bli shhe r e nti tle me nt t o s umm ary jud g me nt o n th a t c la im. Se c tio n 1 51 .0 10 1, su

bs e c tio n ( a ) o f the ta x c od e e nume rate s th e “ ta xab le se rv ic e s” that are subject t o the Texas sales and use tax. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 151.0101(a ) (West 2008). Subsection (b) of that section provides that “ [t ]he comptroller s h all have e x clusive jurisdiction to interpre t Subsection (a) of this section.” Id. § 151.0048(b). Among the “taxable ser vices” listed in subsection (a) are “re al prope rty service s.” See id. § 151.0101(a) (11). The tax code define s “r ea l p roperty

service s” to include such se rvice s as landsca ping, la wn or tre e ca

re, sur veying, janitorial servic es, and:
the re moval or collec tion of g arba g e, rubbish, or othe r solid waste other than (A) hazardous wa ste; (B ) ind

us tri al s oli d wa ste ; (C) waste material that re sults from an activity associate d with the exploration, development, or

production of oi l , g as, g eother mal resour ces, or

any other7 substance or materia l regulated by the Railroad Commission of Tex as under Section 91.101, Natura l Resource s Code; (D ) d o m es t i c s ew age o r an i rr i gat i o n re tu rn fl o w, t o t h e e x t en t t h e s ew age or re turn flow does not c onstitut e g arba g e or r ubbish; and (E ) ind

ustr ial di sch arges su bj e c t to re g ulatio n b y pe rm it i ssu e d p ur su ant to Chapter 26, Water

Code. . . .
Id. § 151.0048(a) (3) ( West 2008) (emphasis adde d).

Comptroller rule 3

. 3 5 6 addre sses the taxabilit y of re al prope rty

service s. See 34 Tex. Admin. C ode § 3.356. Rule 3.356 def ines “g arba g e o r o t h er solid waste” a nd “industrial
so lid wa ste ” a s f

oll ow s: (3) Gar

bag e or othe r solid waste—Waste; refuse; sludge f rom a wa ste treatment plant, a water supply treatment pla nt, or an air pollution control fac ility ; and other disc ar d ed mater ial, including solid, liquid, semisoli d, or conta ined g a se ou s mate ri a l, res ult ingfr om r e sid e nti a l, i nd us tr ia l, m

un ic ipa l, com m erc ial, mining, and a g ricultural ope rations, and r esulting f rom community

and instituti onal ac tiviti es. The term does not include a ny of the fo l l o wi n g: * * * (E ) ind

us tr ia l so lid

wa ste , a s th a t te rm is define d in He a lthand

Sa fe ty Co de, Cha

pte r 3 61 , w iththe e xce pti on of ind us tr ia l so lid

wa ste which mee ts the definition of g arba g e or municipa l solid waste.
Id. § 3.356(a) (3)( E). Chapter 361 of the health and safe ty code is the Solid Waste Disposal Act. See Tex. Health & Safety

Code Ann. § 361.001 (West 2001 ). T h e S o l i d Waste Disposal Act def ines

“ ind us tr ia l so lid

wa ste ” a s:Th e re is n o d isp ute that S ou th ern Plas tic s’ s w a ste duri ngthe a ud it p e ri od

wa s “ so lid 2 wa s t e. ” T h e A ct ’s d ef

i n i t i o no f “ s o l i d

wa s t e” gen er al l y i n cl u d es “ga rb age , ru b b i s h , re fu s e, s l u d ge from a w aste tre atment plant, wate r suppl y treatment plant, or air pollution control fa cility , and other discarde d materia l, including solid, l i q u i d , s emisolid, or contained g aseous mate rial re sulting fro m indu str ia l, m

un ic ipa l, c omm e rc ia l, m ini ng , a nd a g ri c ult ur a l op e ratio ns and

fr om c omm

un ity and instituti onal ac tiviti es.” Te x . Hea lth & Safe ty Code Ann. § 361.003(34) , (35) ( West 2001). “Ga rbag e” unde r the Act is de fined much more narr owly than in r ule 3.356(a) (3): “solid waste that i s p u t re s ci b l e a n i m al an d v ege t ab l e w as t e m at er i al s fr o m t h e h an d l i n g, p re p ar at i o n , co o k i n g, or consumption of food, includingwaste materia ls from marke ts, storag e fa cilities, and the handling and sale of produc e and othe r food pr oducts.” Id. § 361.003(10). B ey ond that di s t i n ct ion, the Act’s de finition of “solid waste” is lar g ely identical to rule 3.356( a)( 3)’s de finition of “g arba g e or other solid waste.” Thus, rule 3.356(a )(3) implies that “industrial solid wa ste” is a subcate g ory

of “g arba g e or othe r solid waste.” For this re ason, rule 3.356(a) (3)’ s provision making ta x able “ industrial solid waste” that “mee ts the definition of g arba g e or municipal solid waste” presumably cannot r efe r to the pre ceding definition of “g arba g e or othe r solid waste” from which “i ndustrial solid waste” is excluded; otherwise, the “industrial solid waste” e x clusion would be a circ ular nullity

. See F leming Foods of Tex., Inc . v. Ry lander , 6 S.W. 3d 27 8, 28 4 ( Te x. 19 99 ) ( statut e s ar e c on str ue d ac c or din g to t

he ir pla in lang uag e unless doing so would lead to a bsurd results). Southern Plastics a rg ues that the provision nece ssarily

incorporates the Ac t’s narr ower definition of “g arba g e” a nd its definition of “municipal solid waste,” f

urther obse rving that rule 3.356 c ontains no d ef i n i t i on of “municipa l solid waste” while the Ac t does. See Tex. He alth & Safety Code Ann. § 361.003(20) (“‘ Municipal solid waste’ me ans so lid

wa ste re su lti ngfr om o r i nc ide nta l to mun ic ipa l, co mmunit y , co mme rc ia l, i ns tit

uti on a l, or re c re atio na l a c tiv iti es, and in c lud e s g arb a g e , r ub bis h, a sh e s, str e e t c le anin g s, de a d a nim a ls, abandone d automobiles, and other solid wa ste other than industrial solid waste.” ). In sever al prior ruling s , t h e C omptroller has a g ree d that rule 3.356(a )(3) (E)’ s ref ere nce to “ g arba g e” inc orporates the Act’ s definition of that term. See, e .g. , Tex. Com ptroller of Pub. Ac counts, STAR Document No. 200312389L

(ef fec tive Dec . 30, 2003) (“ I t is the definition of g arba g e i n C h ap t er 3 61 of the Hea lth and Safety

Code which the Tax Division maintains controls t he taxability of wa ste remova l service s in this case.”) ; Hear ing N o. 42,854, STAR Document No
. 2 0 0 4 0 4 692H (Apr . 16, 2004) 8 solid waste resulting from or incidenta l to a proce ss of industry or manufa cturing , or min ingor a g ri c ult ur a l op e ratio ns . Id. § 361.003(16) ( West 2001). The par ties’ dispute cente rs prim arily on the prope r interpr etation of “resulting f

rom or i n ci dental to a

pr oc e ss o f i nd

us tr y or manu fa c tur ing ,” a s in c or po rate d in to rule 3.356(a )(3) (E). See id. (empha sis added). 2(“[i] n Rule 3.356(a) (3)( E), the Comptroller ha s ad o p te d f o r s a le s ta x purposes the statutory

definition of industrial solid waste in Tex. Health and Saf ety Code, Chapter 361 [“Solid W aste Disposal Act”]”). A lthough the Comptrolle r c it e s r u le 3
. 3 5 6(a) (3)( E)’s “ g arba g e” e x clusion to emphasize that she has not unqualifiedly adopted the Act’s definition of “industrial solid waste” in her rule, we do n o t u n d er stand her to be contendingthat Southern Plastics’s waste, if “ industrial solid waste,” is nonetheless taxable be cause it is also “g arba g e.” I nstead, she joins issue with Southern Plastics reg ardingthe bre adth of “ industrial solid waste” under rule 3.356(a )(3) (E). E.g ., scra

p plastic, remna

nts of pulp, and liner “ webbing .” 3 Merriam-W

ebster’s Collegiate Dictionary 587, 999 (10th ed. 1 9 9 4 ); Bry an A. Ga rner , 4 A Dictionary of Mode rn Legal Usage 430 (2d ed. 1995)

. 9 Southern Plastics argues that the plain meaning of wa ste “re sulting fr om” or “incidenta l to” its manufactur ing pr ocess e ncompasses not on l y i t s waste f rom the ac tual

manu fa c tur ingof

pla sti c c los ur e s and

lin e rs , but also discarde d wra ppi n g and pac kag ing f

rom 3 its incoming and outg oing shipments, and even i ts office waste. I t cites definitions from dictionar ies and case l aw to th e e f

f e c t t h a t “ r e s u lt in g f

r o m” me an s a

“ c o n s e qu e n c e ” o r

“ e f f e c t o f , ” o r “ ar is ing from,” while “incidenta l to” means “close ly related to” or e ven “pe riphera l.” I n Southern Plastics’s 4 vie w, “ wa ste g e ne rate d b y [ it s] proc e ss o f s or tin g , s e g re g a tin g , s tor ingand us ingits ra

w m a te ri a ls and supplies and was t e g ener ated by its process of w rappingand pac kag ing f inished products for shipp in g to c u s to me r s ” f

a ll w it h in th o s e d e f

in it io n s . A d d it io n a ll y , So u th e r n Pl a s ti c s o b s e r

v e s that the Texas Commi ssion on Environmental Quality

— t h e state a g ency

char g ed with enf

orcing

and imp le me nti ngthe Sol id Wa ste Di sp os a l A c t—a pp are ntl y c on sid e rs a ll w a ste fr om a manufa cturingplant to be “industrial solid wast e” that must be classified a ccor ding to TCEQ regulations. See 30 Te x. Ad min . Co de § 3 35 .5 08 (3 ) ( 20 09 ) ( Te x. Com m’ n o n E nv tl. Qu a lity ) ( a ll “plant trash,” including trash from “fa cility office s” and “ca fete ria,” constitutes Class 2 i n d ustrial solid waste); Tex. Comm ’n on Envtl. Quality , I nstructions for C o m p l eting the Notification forSe e su pra note 2. 5 See T ex . C o m ptroller of Pub. Ac counts, Hea ring No. 39,987, STAR Document 6 No. 200208491H (Aug . 21, 2002). 10 Hazardous or I ndustrial Waste Manag ement F orm (TCEQ-00002) 22 (2009) ( available at www.tce q.state.tx .us/assets/public/permitti ng /rrr/for ms/0002inst .pdf) ( “all wa stes . . . even of fice trash” pr oduced by a fa cil ity that “make [s] a produc t for wholesa le ac cordingto an org anized plan and with a division of labor, chang e[s] materia ls by proce ssing them, or substantially support[s] either of those ac tiviti es” a

re “ industrial waste.” ). Thus, Southern Plastics rea sons, the se wastes are all nonta xa b l e “ i n d u s t r i a l s o l i d w a s t e . ” S o u t h e r n P l a s t i c s c o n c e d e s , h o w e v e r , t h a t f o o d w a s t e f

r om i ts employ ee br eak room was taxable be cause it c onstitut ed “g arba g e” unde r the Solid W aste Disposal Act. See Tex. Health and Safe ty Code Ann. § 361.003(10) (West 2001); 34 Tex. Admin. C ode § 3.356(a) (3)( E). This t ax able wa ste ca n be disreg arde d, Southern Plastics asserts, bec ause the 5 summary -judg ment evidenc e conc lusively establishes t hat i t was de minimi s—less than one perce nt of the plant’s total wa ste stream during the audit per iod. 6

The Comptroller counte rs, first, t h at S o u thern Plastics failed to c omply with the administr at ive or re cordke eping require ments for c laiming that a ny portion of its waste during the audit per iod was non-taxable. Rule 3.356 g ener ally re q u i res persons providing “g arba g e or oth e r s oli d w a ste ” se rv ic e s to ob ta in a ta x pe rm it a

nd c oll ect and re mit

sa le s and us e ta xes o n a ll char g es for

such ser vices. 34 Te x . Admin. Code § 3.356(b). Subsection (h) of the rule sets forth the pr oc e dure fo r t a xpay e rs to a sse rt the ir ri g hts a g a ins t ha

vin g sa le s tax ass e sse d o n c oll e c tio n o f w a ste that is wholly

or par tly non-taxable:I n some of her pleading s, including he r summary -judg ment motion, the Com ptroller re fer s 7 to the asser

ted fa ilure of Sout hern Pl astics to comply with rule 3.356(h) ’s re cordke eping require ment as a f ailure to mee t its “burden” to r ecove r a sa les tax refund. In its t h i rd i s sue, Southern Plastics c h ar a c t e r i z e s t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s a s m i s p l a c i n g t h e C o mp t r o l l e r ’ s b u r d e ni nh e r t r a d i t i o n a l s u m m ar

yjudgme nt motion, requiring Souther n Plastics to prove its entitlement to a refund r ather than requiringthe Comptroller to conclusively neg ate its entitlement. We understand the Comptroller’ s po sit ion ins te a d to be that Southe rn Pla sti c s c ann ot, a s a matte r o f l aw, re c ov e r o n it s r e fu nd c la im beca use the summary -judg ment evidenc e conclusively establishes that it did not ma intain or provide “books and re co rd s ” that could support its desire d tax t reatment of its waste, as r equire d by rule 3.356(h)

. 11 (h) Ga rbag e collec tion services t h at may be excluded fr om tax . Persons providing collection ser

vices for customer s h aving waste e x cluded f rom the def

inition of “g arba g e or othe r solid waste” may acc ept an ex emption cer

tificate from the customer in lieu of tax. The e x emption cer tificate must state the ty

pe of w aste be ing e x cluded, and that either

the waste to be collecte d is totally excludable or that the c ustomer has both tax able a

nd nontaxable waste a

nd the customer w ill be responsible for acc ruing tax on t hat portion of the c harg e which repr esents taxable se rvice s. The customer may us e any re a so na ble a llo c ati on

fo r r e po rt ing

ta x on taxab le se rv ic e s w hic h is supportable by

books and re cords.
Id. § 3.356(h). The Comptroller p o i n t s o u t that Southern Plastics did not present the City with an
e xemp tio n c e rt if

ic a te , b ut p a id s a le s tax on th e e nti re ty of th e was te r e mov a l se rv ic e s th e City provided duringthe audit per iod. S e e id. The Comptroller fur ther a sserts that Southern Plastics cannot, a s a matter of

law, “showhow much of the wast e i t gen er ated dur ing the audit period wa s ind us tr ia l so lid

wa ste and

ho w m uc h w a s n ot” (i .e ., a

“ re a so na ble a llo c a tio n” un de r 3 .3 56 (h )) be c a us e the summary -judg ment evidenc e conclusively establishes that Southern Plastics did not maintain any “books and r ecor ds” that could s u p p o rt its proposed tax treatment of the City ’s waste remova l service s. See id. ; se e als o Te x. Tax Code Ann. § 1 11 .0 04 1 ( Wes t 20 08 ) ( re qu ir ingta xpay e r t o r e ta in
rec ords for inspe ction by

the comptroller or

the attorne y

g ener al for pe riod of four y ear s). 7The Comptroller does not a ppear to dispute that Sout hern Plastics’s wa ste g ener ated 8 by the manufa cturing proce ss itself would be “industrial solid waste.” How ever , she conte nds that Southern Plastics’s failure to c o mp ly w it h th e r e c o r d k e e p ingrequire ments of rule 3.356( h) for eclose s its claim to a ref

und of any

portion of the sale s t ax es i t paid on waste remova l during the audit period. See Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Ac counts, STAR Doc ument No. 9201L 1162A01 (e ffe ctive 9 J an. 3 0 , 1 9 92) (e ven while “ manufa cture rs must packa g e and ship their pr oducts,” “ shipping re fu se re latin g to .
. . manu fa c tur ing op e ratio ns (i .e , pa c kin g and un pa c kin g mate ri a l, b ro ke n p a lle ts, etc.) ” is not “indust ri al solid waste”) ; Tex. C omptroller of Pub. Acc ounts, STAR Document No . 9 20 9L 11 93 F 12 (e ff

e c tiv e Se pt. 25, 1 99 2) (“ I nd us tr ia l so lid

wa ste , a s th a t te rm

is u se d in Rul e 3. 35 6, me ans wa ste pr od uc ts re su lti ng fr om the a c tua l ma nu fa c tur ingpr oc e ss, su c h a s sa wd us t from lumber mills, slag from a ste el manuf acturing pr ocess, or

waste lumber

[at a plant that manufa cture s wooden doors and shingle s]. ‘Industrial solid waste’ doe s not mean empty paint cans or the disca

rded shipping ref

use in which ra

w mater ials were rec eived. Ma nufact u re rs can ha

ve much more ta x able wa ste than just the paper g ener ated by

the admi n i s t ra t i v e st aff .”); He aring No. 33,600, Tex. Compt roller of Pub. Accounts, STAR Document No. 9601H 1390B11 (J an . 16, 1996) (c ardboa

rd cor es used to support aluminum coils in shipment to pla nt that use d coils as ra

w mate ri a l in

manu fa c tur ing“ are no t w a ste pr od uc ts f ro m an a c tua l ma

nu fa c tur ingp r o c e s s [but ] fi t in to the categ ory

of shipping ref

use, and the collec tion of those core s is a taxable rea l property service .”); Hea ring No. 43,049, Tex. Compt roller of Pu b

. Accounts, STAR Document No. 200610888H (Apr. 20, 2004) (citing Hea ring No. 33,600 in ruling that “disca rded pa ckag ing a

nd wra pping materia l, including a luminum bandings, cardboar d box es, and plastic sheeting ” was not “industrial solid waste”)

. See also Tex. Com ptroller of Pub. Ac co unts, STAR Document No. 200104170L (e ff e c tiv e Ap r. 11 , 2 00 1) (f

oo d le ft ov e rs g e ne ra

te d b y of fi c e e mpl oy e e s are no t in du str ia l so lid waste)

. 12

Additionally , the Comptroller asser ts that Sout hern Plastics’s off ice wa ste and packa g ing w aste fr om incoming or outgoing shipments a re not “ resulting from” or “incidenta l to” the plant’s manufa cturingproce sses as she ha s interpre ted rule 3.356(a)( 3)(E)

. I n sever al prior 8 ruling s and policy

statements, the Comptroller has inter prete d “indus t ri al solid waste” unde r
ru l e 3
. 3 56(a) (3)( E) to be limited to waste g ener ated by the “a ctual manuf

actur ing pr ocess” and to exclude sh ipping r efuse or off ice wa ste. Th e Com

ptr oll e r e xpla ins that he r i nte rp re tatio n is 9 ba se d o n w hat s he pe rc e ive s a s th e pu bli c po lic y

un de rl yingthe statut or

y e xclu sio n o f “ ind

us tr ia l so lid waste,” “hazar dous waste,” and other exclusions from tax able “ g arbage, ru b b ish, or otherSee Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Ac counts, STAR Document No. 9201L 1162A01 (e ffe ctive 10 Jan. 30 , 1 99 2) (“ Pa c ka g ingor sh ipp ingre fu se is f

re e fr om r e g ulatio n” un de r t he Sol id Wa ste Disposal Act); Tex. Comptroller of Pub. Ac counts, STAR Document No. 9209L 1193F12 ( eff ective 13 solid waste” —to avoid imposing a tax di sincentive a g ainst desirable waste c lean- up activities. See Te x. Tax Code Ann. § 1 51 .0 04 8( a )( 3) . T he c or e le g isl a tiv e c on c e rn re fl e c te d in

the se pr ov isi on s, in the Com ptr oll e r’ s vie w, wa s with ha zar do us , pote nti a lly ha zar do us , o r o the r w a ste pe rc e ive d to c re a te pronounce d environmenta l threats, as is fre quently true of manufa cturingwaste. See House Rese arc h Or gan i zation, Bill Analy sis, Tex . H.B . 1814, 72d L eg ., R.S. (1991) (“[T]o avoid im posing a tax disincentive on desirable waste- disposal a ctivities,” taxable w aste remova l doe s not include remova l of “ ha zar do us wa ste , in du str ia l so lid wa ste , d ome sti c se wa g e and c e rt a in oth e r wa ste s” ). B y c on tr a st, the Comptroller maintains, the leg islature m a n if e s te d it s intent in section 151.0048(a)( 3) that ordinar y “g arba g e” a

nd “rubbish” be taxed. The Comptroller also emphasizes that section 151.0048(b) of the tax code g rants her

“exclusive jurisdiction” to construe the provisions de fining taxable service s, and that her c onstruction of statutory or rule la ng uag e def

ining taxable ser

vices should control ove r that of the TCE Q i n th e e ve nt o f a c on fl ic t. Be sides condemningthe Comptroller’s interpr etation of “ i n d u s t ri al solid waste” a s inconsisten t wi t h t h e plain tex t of rule 3.356( a)( 3)(E) , Southern Plastics questions both t he
c on sis te nc y

wi th whic h th e Com

ptr oll e r h a s a

pp lie d he r int e rp re ta

tio n and he r u nd e rl yingratio na le s. I t cites lang uag e fr om some of the Comptroller’s policy statements and r u l i n gs s u gg esting an
e rr on e ou s v ie w that th e Sol id Wa ste Di sp os a l A c t do e s n ot re gu late any

waste f rom manufa cturing fac iliti es other tha

n hazardous waste and indus trial solid waste re sulting fr om actual manuf actur ing

a c tiv iti e s. As fo r t

he Com ptr oll e r’ s “ e xclu siv e jur isd ic tio n” to co ns tr ue the de fi nit ion s of “ ta xab le 10Sept. 25, 1992) (“Shipping ref use, empty

paint, g lue, and va

rnish container s are not regulated” unde r the Act)

. Cf. 30 Tex. Admin. C ode § 335.508(3) (Tex. Comm ’n on Envtl. Quality ) (a ll “plant trash,” including tr ash fr om “fa cility office s” and “ caf

eter ia,” c onstitut es Class 2 industrial solid waste). The Comptroller pre sented the a ffidavit of Rober t H. Kra hn, the auditor who pe rfor med 11 the Comptroller’s sales ta x audit of So u thern Plastics’s Kilg ore pla nt. Krahn te stified that he “examined the b o o k s and re cords of Southern Plastics” and that “ [d] uring the audit, Southern Pla sti c s d id n ot sh ow me bo ok s and re c or ds do c ume nti ngor

c la ssi fy ingits wa ste str e a m f

or the a ud it period [or] . .

. show me any documentation showingthat the waste g ener ated dur ing the audit period was industrial solid waste.” Kra hn explained that “ [t ]he only documentation I rec all seeingwer e two pictures showingoffice trash, broke n pallets, pape r, or laminate skeletons re sulti n g fr om the manufa cturingproce ss.” Kra hn further testified that he examined the invoices for the waste r emoval service s Southern Plastics pur chase d from the City during the audit per iod. These invoice s, as noted, do no t r e fl e c t th e c omp os iti on of Southe rn Pla sti c s’ s w a ste str e a m. 14 service s,” Southern Plastics contends that the Comptroller ha s exercised he r jurisdiction to adopt a statutory

definition of “industrial solid waste” from the Solid Waste Disposal Act that the TCEQ
or its pr e d e c e s s o r s h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d an d a dm i n i s t e r e d

f o r d e c a d e s . H av i n g o p t e d t o a d o p tt h is definition, Southern Plastics sugg ests, the Com ptroller is bound to follow it. See R odriguez , 997 S.W .2d at 255 (a g ency is bound to follow its own rules a nd proce dures)

. Reg ardingrule 3.356(h) ’s re cord- keepingrequir em ent, S outhern Plastics cites summary -judg ment evidenc e of invoice s and re ceipts it rec eived i n connec tion with the Ci ty ’s waste r emoval ser

vices duringthe audit per iod. Howeve r, these documents ref lect only that Southern Plastics periodica lly paid a fee to the C ity or i ts subcontrac tors for waste removal service s, but do not indicate the composition of the plant’s waste stre am. The Comptroller pr esente d summary -judg ment evidenc e that, during he r audit, Southern Plastics was una ble to provide he r auditor a ny other books
or re cords r eg ardingits waste strea m other than some photogr aphs of its waste. As evidenc e of the 11 composition of its waste stream dur ing the audit period, Southern Plastics ha s relied primarily on two separ ate one -we ek studies per formed by company employ ees se vera l y ear s afte r the audit period. The15

first of the studi es wa s perf ormed by Ed Casto, Maintenanc e and Proc ess Eng ineer for Southern Plastics. Casto sum marized his findings in an affidavit dated May 23, 2005. The sec ond study , which
cover ed a pe riod betwe en De cembe r 4 and 12, 2006, w as per formed by Ron Sm it h, L og istics Manag er for Southern Plastics. Smith sum marized his fi n d i n gs in an af fidavit dated F ebrua

ry 23, 2007. Acc ording to these af

fidavits, eac h study

deter mine d t h at, duringthe per iod of the study , less than one per cent of

the Southern Plastics waste remove d by the City came from the of

fice , administrative, or bre ak room a

rea s. S m i t h further

deter mined that less than three perc ent of total wa ste collec ted by the City during his study

came from disca

rded pa ckag ing or

wra pp i n g fr o m i n -bound raw materia ls. Both Castro and Smit h aver red that the proce sses Southern Plastics used to manufac ture plas t i c cl o s ures dur ing the ir study was “ substantially ” the same as or similar to that used dur ing the audit per iod.

Southern Plastics a ls o prese nted the May 2007 deposition testimony from John S teven Cla rk e , a no the r e mpl oy e e wh o w a s f a mil iar w ithSouthern P la sti c s’ s ma nu fa c tur ingpr oc e sse s,
as we ll as Smi th ’s deposit ion. Clarke testified that wa ste g ener ated f rom the pac kag ing of outgoingshipments comprises about one- half of one perc ent of Southern Plastics’s total wa ste. He added—c onsidering that office or administrative wa ste ac counts for le ss than one per cent of waste, and wa ste from incomingshipments accounte d for thre e per cent—that wa ste from the ma nufac turing proce ss itself acc ounts for over ninety -five pe rce nt of Southern Plastics’s total waste. Clarke further testified that Southern Plastics had substant ia ll y th e s ame volume of

business, near ly

the same numbe r
o f employ ees, a

nd the same numbe r of mac hines in operation during the audit period and the onewe e k s tud ie s a s it

did a t th e tim e of

his de po si ti on . On

the oth e r h and , Cl ark e and Smith b oth16

acknow ledg ed that the volume and c ompositi on of Southern Plastics’s waste stream va ries somewhat f r o m w e e k

- t o - w e e k

an d s e a s o n a l l y. The Com ptroller point s out that Southern Plastics’s refund c laim hinge s not on proof of what its waste stream a ctually was during

the audit per iod, per se, but whe ther Southern Plastics’s pr op os e d tax tre a tme nt o f i ts wa ste re mov a l is “ re a so na ble ” and “ su

pp or ta ble by bo ok s a

nd re c or ds ”
as re quired by

rule 3.356(h)

. See 34 Tex. Admin. Code § 3.356(h). As f or the two studies on which Southern Plastics primarily relies, the Comptroller ur g es that “a ll these studies prove is what ty pe and how much wa ste Southern Plastics g ener ated during the two wee ks that wer e studied”—w hich, she

a dd s, we re c on du c te d y e ars aft er th e aud it pe ri od . Sh e c ha ra c te ri zes the stu die s a s n arr ow“ sin g le poi nt in tim e che cks” that provide no objec tive means of ve rifying the actua l waste stre am at that time, much less during the audit per iod, further observingthat both Smi th and Clarke a dmitted that Southe rn Pla sti c s’ s w a ste str e a m ha d w e e kly and se a so na l va

ri a tio ns . The Comptroller’s c onstruction of the “ books and re cords” require ment of rule 3.356(h) to prec lude re liance on Souther n Plastics’s two afte r- t h e- fac t, one-we ek studies (or sim ila r att emp ts to r e pli c a te the c omp os iti on of Southe rn Pla sti c s’ s w a ste str e a m du ri ngthe a ud it period) is not plainly

err oneous or inconsistent w ith the r egulation. The Comptroller has c onstrued “supportable by

books and records” to require a more contempora neous, pre cise a

nd objective r ecor d of Southe rn Pla sti c s’ s w a ste str e a m du ri ngthe a ud it p e ri od

that w ou ld e na

ble he r to ve ri fy

the ba sis fo r t he c omp any ’s c la ims that all or pa rt of its wa ste wa s n on -t a xab le . T he Com ptr oll e r a c te d w ith in her discr etion here in determining that Southern Plastics’s documentation was insufficient to satisfy the ru le ’s re qu ir e me nts
. See Gulf States Utils. Co. , 809 S.W. 2d a t 207 (a g e nc y ’s int e rp re tatio n o f i tsAtta c he d to Ga lli ard t’ s a ff ida vit wa s a n e xce rp t f

ro m So uth e rn

Pla sti c s’ s N OR , a lbe it 12 dated May

24, 2006. Be side “De scription from Ge nerator,” the N OR indicated “ Gene ral off ice, caf eter ia/brea

kroom, and misc. nonhaz plan t waste/Genera ted throug h normal daily plant a c tiv iti e s/i nit ial generatio n b e g an o n o r a ft e r 8 /24 /92 .” Ga lli ard t and the NO R do no t e la

bo rate furthe r o n th e r e lati v e p r o p o rti o n s o f e a c h ty p e o f s o u r c e o f w a s te in So u th e r n Pl a s ti c s ’ s total waste stre am. Southe rn

Pla sti c s a lso pr e se nte d a two-p age sp re a ds he e t e nti tle d “ Southe rn Was te I nventory ,” filed w ith TCEQ, that indicates it was last re vised in April 2006. I t l i s t s various c a te g or ie s o f “ Cla ss 2 ” no n- ha zar do us wa ste pr od uc ts :

• “Waste ca

rdboar d” g ener ated “ during packa g ing of final produc t prior to shipment.”

17 ow n r ule s is e nti tle d to de fe re nc e un le ss i t is pla inl y e rr on e ou s) ; see also T ex . T ax Code Ann. § 111.0041 (four -y ear

rec ord re tention require ment). On the oth e r h and , w e c on c lud e tha t So uth e rn

Pla sti c s ha s r a ise d a

fa c t is su e a s to whether “books and r ecor ds” exist, or ex isted during the a u d i t period, that would de monstrate that

a ll w a ste fr om i ts K ilg or e pla nt duri ng the a

ud it pe ri od wa s c la ssi fi e d a s Cl a ss 2 ind us tr ia l so lid

wa ste by the TCE Q. Southe rn Pla sti c s pre se nte d the a ff ida vit of Ma rk Ga lli a rd t, i ts E nv ir on me nta l H e a lth and Safe ty M an age r. Galliardt expl ained that his job responsibilities had included e nsuring that Southe rn Pla sti c s’ s K ilg or e pla

nt co mpl ie d with a ll state e nv ir on me nta l re g ulatio ns duri ngthe a ud it pe ri od . G a lli ard

t te sti fi e d th a t, i n c omp lia nc e wi th t he Sol id Was te Di sp os a l Ac t and re late d r ule s, Southern Plastics filed a “N otice of Reg istration” (NOR) with the TCEQ befor e the audit period a nd pe ri od ic a lly

up date d it

to r e fl e c t any

c ha ng e s in its wa ste str e a m. A c c or din g to G a lli ard t, t he wa ste
remove d by

the City was “ classified a s Class 2 indust rial solid wast e u n d er TCEQ regulations and g uidelines.” He e laborated that the plant also g enerat ed o t h er ty pes of wa ste, some classifie d as 12• “ Plant T ra sh ” g e ne rate d in “ Of fi c e , L un c hr oo ms. ” Th e c ha

rt fu rt he r s tate s, “ Any

c la ss 2 w a s te orig inating in the f

acility office s, laborator

y , plant production ar ea, or food ser vice a rea t h at i s co m

p o s edo f c ar d

b o ar d , p ap er , l i n i n gs , wr ap p i n gs , p ap er an d / o r w o o d en p ac k agi n g, uncontaminated f

ood waste, a luminum foil , aluminum s cr ap , empty container s with a holding c apac ity

of less than 5 g allons, uncontaminated f ood swee pings.”

• “Of

f Spec Produc t, Plant refuse” from “G ene r a l P lant.” I t further states, “Supplemental Plant Refuse: Any class 2 waste from production, m anufa cturing or laboratory operations as long as the total a m o u n t of the supplementa l plant production ref use does not excee d tw e nty pe rc e nt o f t

he tot a l pl ant t

ra sh

. . . v olume or

we ig ht, wh ic he ve r i s le ss. Th is c ou ld include, but i s n o t l im it e d to , s u c h th in g s a s me ta l p arts , f lo o r s w e e p in g s , an d

o ff specific ation materia l.” The Comptroller has previously sug g ested that taxpay ers who g ener at e i n dustrial 13 solid waste will ordinarily be re quired to file doc umentation with the TCEQ that will suffice “to establish what por

tion of the waste is nontaxable ha z ar dous waste, nontaxable industrial solid waste, and taxable g arba g e or municipa l solid waste.” See Te x. Com ptr oll e r of Pub . A c c ounts , STAR Document No. 200104170L (ef fec tive Apr. 11, 2001). H oweve r, if for some reason such do c ume ntatio n is no t r e qu ir e d, th e Co mp tr oll e r e mph a size d th a t “ the wa ste g e ne rator mus t st ill e sta bli shwh a t po rt ion

of the ir wa ste str e a m is nontaxab le ind us tr ia l so lid

wa ste ve rs us ta xab le g arba g e or municipa l waste.” Id. She further explained: Th e wa ste g e ne rator

c an d o th is b y

ide nti fy ingand do c ume nti ngin writ ingtho se proce sses that produce the v ar ious ty pes and a mounts of wastes. F or example, a waste g ener ator that is a manuf actur er de termines that ther e ar e 150 off ice e mploy ees and other employ ees that ge nerate 100 pounds of off ice trash or g arba g e (e .g ., food leftover s, etc.) that is disposed of on a weekly basis. The incomingpurcha ses of ra w materia ls and other supplies produc e anothe r 1 0 0 pounds of boxes and other pa c ka g ing wa ste fo r dis po sa l ea c h we e k. Th e a c tua l outp ut of ind us tr ia l solid

wa ste from the manuf

actur ing pr o cess is dete rmined to be 200 pounds for disposal eac h wee k. There fore , the waste g ener ator c an show in this example that 50 perce nt of the wa ste tha t is dis po se d o f i s n on ta xab le ind us tr ia l so lid

wa ste and

50 pe rc e nt i s taxab le 18 hazardous wa ste, that wer e re moved or disposed of by entities other than the City . Galliardt a dded

“ B e c a us e of the re lativ e ly

sma ll a mou

nt of ha zar do us wa ste g e ne rate d b y [Sou the rn

Pla sti c s] a t th is pla nt, it is des ig nate d as a ‘c on dit ion a lly e xemp t sm a ll q

ua nti ty g e ne rator ’ u

nd e r T CEQ re g ulatio ns . As su c h, it i s n ot r e qu ir e d to su bmi t r e g ula

r r e po rt s to TCE Q r e g ard ing its wa ste dis po sa l a c tiv iti e s” or “to maintain re cords r eg ardingits Cl ass 2 industrial solid waste disposal activities.” 13g arb a g e or mun ic ipa l so lid was te by us ingpr oc e ss k

no wl e dg e of

the bu sin e ss o p e r a ti o n . A d d it io n a l d o c u me n tati o nth a t f u rth e r s u p p o rts th e c la im

o f e xemption can be kept; such as photogr aphs of the amount and ty pes of wa ste that are g ener ated. Id. Howeve r, the Comptroller stressed, “A single point in time ‘c heck’ of the c ontents of a dumpster by a waste g ener ator or consultant is not verifia ble and is insufficie nt information to establish what portion of the wa ste is tax able wa ste versus nontaxable wa ste.” Id

. 19 For t h es e rea sons, our dispositi on of Southern Plastics’s cha lleng e to summary judgme nt on i t s re fu nd claim turns on whethe r the status of its waste dur ing the audit period a s Cla ss 2 ind

us tr ia l so lid

wa ste un de r T CEQ re g ulatio ns c on tr ols wh e the r t he w ast e is n on -t a xab le “industrial solid waste” under Comptroller rule 3.356(a )(3) (E). I n that reg ard, r

ule 3.356(a )(3) (E)’ s ref ere nce to “industrial s olid waste, as that term i s define d in Hea lth and S afe ty Code, Chapter 361 . . . ,” is susceptible to at lea st two int erpretations. I t could mean that the de finition of “industrial solid waste” unde r rule 3.356(a) (3)( E) tra cks whatever the term mea

ns in the health and sa fety code, as interpr eted and applied in the contex t of st ate environmental reg ulation. This is the construction

a dv oc a te d b y

Southe rn Pla stics. Al te rn a tiv e ly , “ ind us tr ia l so lid

wa ste , a s th a t te rm

is d e fi ne d in He a lthand

Sa fe ty Cod e , Ch a

pte r 3 61
. . . , ” c ou ld m e an that the Com ptr oll e r i nte nd e d to inc or

po rate the language o f that statutory definition, which she would then inter pret a nd apply , as a matter of tax pol icy

and administration, and potentially in a manner

diverg in g fr o m i t s appli cation in the environmenta l regulatory arena. This is essentially the construc tion advance d by the Comptroller. We c ann ot c on c lud e that th e Com ptr oll e r’ s c on str

uc tio n is pla inl y

e rr on e ou s o r i nc on sis te nt w ith the re gu lation, espec ially ag ainst the bac kdrop of tax code se ction 151.0048(b)’ s mandate that the Com ptr oll e r h a ve “ e xclu siv e jur isd ic tio n” to i nte rp re t th e statut or y de fi nit ion s o f t a xab le se rv ic e s. See Tex. Tax Code Ann. § 151.0048(b). Although rule 3.356(a )(3) (E) ma y ref lect the Comptroller’sSee Hea ring No. 44.501, Tex. Compt roller of Pub. Accounts, STAR Document 14 No. 200506292H (June 23, 2005). 20 desire f or gui d an ce f

rom the environme ntal regulatory are na conc erningthe ty pes of wa ste for

w h i c h r e m o v a l s h o u l d b e i n c e n t i v i z e d b y t a x p o l i c y, its langua g e do e s no t pla inl y dis c la im a uth or ity 14 over the ultimate q u es t i o n of whe ther that wa ste is tax ed. Similarly , we c annot conc lude that the Com ptr oll e r’ s in te rp re tatio n that not all of Southe rn Pla sti c s’ s Clas s 2 ind us tr ia l so lid

wa ste “ re su lts fr om” or is “ inc ide nta l to” the pla

nt’ s manu fa c tur ing pr oc e sse s un de r ru le 3. 35 6( a )( 3) (E ) i s p la inl y
err oneous or inconsistent with the re g ulation. A t a minimum , the Comptroller does not exceed he r
a uth or ity in c on c lud ingthat So uth e rn P last ic s’ s o ff

ic e wa ste and

br e a k r oo m w a ste do e s n ot f a ll within this definition.

Acc ording ly , th e d i s t ri ct court did not err in g rantingsummary judgme nt for the Com p t ro l l er as to Southern Plastics’s tax ref und claim. We overr

ule Southern Plastics’s first and thi rd iss ue s.
Se c ti on 2 00 1. 03 8 c lai m

I n its secon d i s s u e, Southern Plastics argues that it is entitled to a declar ation under the Adminis t ra t i ve Proce dure A ct that the Comptroller invalidly attempted to amend Com ptr oll e r R ule 3. 35 6. South ern P lastic s, ho we ve r, a lle g e d n o c on tr ov e rs y be y on d w he the r i t is entitled to a re fund for taxes pa id dur ing the audit period. The district court did not err in gr anting
s u m m ar y judgme nt on this claim. See U niversal Painting Co. v. Premier Victorian Home s, Inc. , 73 S.W .3d 283, 29 6 (T ex . Ap p .—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2001, pet. denied) (“The re is no basis for21

decla ratory relief when a party is seeking in the same a ction a diffe rent, e nforc eable reme dy , and a judicial decla

ration would add nothing to what would be e x plicit or express in a final judg ment for the enf orce able r emedy .”). We overrule Southern Plastics’s second issue.
CO NC LU SION Havingoverr

uled Southern Plastics’s issues on appea l, we af firm the judg ment of the dis tr ic t c ourt
.

__________________________________________ Bob Pembe rton, J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pember ton and Waldrop Affir med Filed: Jul y

1, 2009