Title: Safe Harbor Water Power Corporation, et al. v. Fajt, Secretary of Revenue (Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 100-143 MAP 2003 & 150-193 MAP 2003
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: June 22, 2005

[J-87A&B-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT SAFE HARBOR WATER POWER CORPORATION, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 100 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 35 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PP&L, INC., f/k/a PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 101 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 36 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 INTERSTATE ENERGY CO., Appellant v. : : : : : : : : No. 102 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 37 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PG ENERGY INC., f/k/a, PENNSYLVANIA GAS & WATER COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 103 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 38 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 WEST PENN POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 104 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 39 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. : : : : : : : : No. 105 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 40 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 106 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 41 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PECO ENERGY COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 107 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 42 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PECO ENERGY POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. : : : : : : : : No. 108 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 43 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 UGI UTILITIES, INC., Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 109 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 44 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 LUZERNE ELECTRIC DIVISION OF UGI UTILITIES, INC., Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 110 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 45 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Appellant v. : : : : : : : : No. 111 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 46 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 CNG TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 112 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 47 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 113 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 48 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant v. : : : : : : : : No. 114 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 49 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NATIONAL FUEL GAS DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 115 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 50 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 116 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 51 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC AND GAS CORPORATION, Appellant v. : : : : : : : No. 117 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 52 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 118 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 53 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 OHIO EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 119 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 54 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, Appellant v. : : : : : : : No. 120 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 55 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 121 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 56 MD 1999, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 122 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 158 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 CNG TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant v. : : : : : : : No. 123 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 160 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellees : : : : : : : Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 124 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 161 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC AND GAS, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 125 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 162 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NATIONAL FUEL GAS DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, Appellant v. : : : : : : : : No. 126 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 163 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, ET AL., Appellees : : : : : : : 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, ET AL., Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 127 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 164 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, ET AL., Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 128 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 165 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 WEST PENN POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. : : : : : : : No. 129 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 201 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, ET AL., Appellees : : : : : : : Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, ET AL., Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 130 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 203 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, ET AL., Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 131 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 205 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 INTERSTATE ENERGY COMPANY, Appellant v. : : : : : : : : No. 132 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 548 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PP&L, INC., Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 133 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 555 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 SAFE HARBOR WATER POWER CORPORATION, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 134 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 557 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : : : : : : : : No. 135 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 635 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Appellee : : : : : Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 OHIO EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 136 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 636 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 137 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 637 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, : : : : : : : : : : No. 138 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 638 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) Appellee : : : : ARGUED: May 11, 2004 LUZERNE ELECTRIC DIVISION OF UGI UTILITIES, INC., Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 139 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 639 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 UGI UTILITIES, INC., Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 140 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 640 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PECO ENERGY COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : No. 141 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 641 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) : : : ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PECO ENERGY COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 142 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 642 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PG ENERGY INC., f/k/a PENNSYLVANIA GAS & WATER COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 143 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated May 23, 2003, at No. 666 FR 2001, published at 825 A.2d 733 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), reversing the opinion of the en banc Commonwealth Court, dated August 16, 2000, published at 758 A.2d 259 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) ARGUED: May 11, 2004 SAFE HARBOR WATER POWER CORP., Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 150 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at 35 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 : : PP&L INC., f/k/a PENNSYLVANIA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 151 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at 36 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 INTERSTATE ENERGY CO., Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 152 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 37 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PG ENERGY, INC., f/k/a PENNSYLVANIA GAS & WATER COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 153 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 38 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 Appellee : : : WEST PENN POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 154 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 39 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 155 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 40 MD 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 156 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 41 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 : : PECO ENERGY COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 157 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 42 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PECO ENERGY POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 158 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 43 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 UGI UTILITIES, INC., Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 159 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 44 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 LUZERNE ELECTRIC OF UGI UTILITIES, INC., Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 160 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 45 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 161 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 46 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 CNG TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 162 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 47 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 163 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 48 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 164 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 49 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NATIONAL FUEL GAS DISTRIBUTION CORPORATION, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 165 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 50 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 166 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 51 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC & GAS CORPORATION, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 167 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 52 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 168 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 53 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 OHIO EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 169 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 54 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 170 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 55 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. GREGORY C. FAJT, SECRETARY OF REVENUE, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 171 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 56 MD 1999, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 172 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 158 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 CNG TRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 173 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 160 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PEOPLES NATURAL GAS COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 174 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 161 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NEW YORK STATE ELECTRIC AND GAS CORPORATION, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 175 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 162 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NATIONAL FUEL GAS CORPORATION, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 176 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 163 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. DUQUESNE LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 177 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 164 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 NATIONAL FUEL GAS SUPPLY CORPORATION, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 178 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 165 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 WEST PENN POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 179 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 201 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 MONONGAHELA POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 180 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 203 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 POTOMAC EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 181 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 205 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 INTERSTATE ENERGY COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 182 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 548 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PP&L, INC., Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 183 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 555 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 SAFE HARBOR WATER POWER CORPORATION, : : No. 184 MAP 2003 Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 557 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 185 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 635 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 OHIO EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 186 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 636 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY, Appellant : : : : : No. 187 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 637 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 188 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 638 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 LUZERNE ELECTRIC DIVISION OF UGI UTILITIES, INC., Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 189 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 639 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 UGI UTILITIES, INC., Appellant v. : : : : : : No. 190 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 640 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PECO ENERGY COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 191 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 641 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PECO ENERGY COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 192 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 642 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 PG ENERGY, INC. f/k/a PENNSYLVANIA GAS & WATER COMPANY, Appellant v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Appellee : : : : : : : : : : No. 193 MAP 2003 Appeal from the Order Commonwealth Court, dated June 25, 2003, at No. 666 FR 2001, granting Appellant’s application for determination of finality. ARGUED: May 11, 2004 DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: June 21, 2005 I agree with the majority that the existence of an adequate post-deprivation procedure for challenging an asserted tax obligation and obtaining a concomitant remedy will ordinarily satisfy the dictates of the Due Process Clause. Here, however, Appellants raise a substantial question concerning the adequacy of the post-deprivation procedure actually afforded them. It is undisputed that Appellants’ initial PURTA tax (the “surtax”) is self-assessing: each year, the taxpayer calculates how much it owes under PURTA, submits this calculation to the Department of Revenue (the “Department”), and pays the tax. The supplemental assessment (the “suptax”) is an entirely different matter. It is unclear in any given year whether any suptax payment will be required. This depends on whether the realty tax equivalent, see 72 P.S. §8101-A(6), exceeds the cumulative total of the surtaxes paid by all utilities. A utility taxpayer lacks access to this information, and it is thus unaware of the existence or size of any shortfall until it receives a notice from the Department listing the ratio to be multiplied by its state taxable value, and demanding remittance of the suptax obligation within 45 days on pain of penalties and interest.1 As suggested above, a utility’s suptax liability is directly controlled by the reports filed by the LTAs pursuant to Section 1106-A, 72 P.S. §8106-A, listing their individual 1 In this regard, I do not concur with the Commonwealth Court’s characterization of the suptax obligations as “self-assessing.” Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. Williams, 825 A.2d 733, 742 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). As discussed, the taxpayers lack the information necessary to compute the PURTA assessment ratio, and must rely upon the Department to supply that figure as part of the notice of tax due and payable. See RR. 41a. [J-87A&B-2004] - 2 realty tax equivalents, as well as the returns filed by all other Pennsylvania utilities pursuant to Section 1102-A, 72 P.S. §8102-A, specifying their state taxable value and their resultant surtax liabilities. These reports may be highly subjective, as they depend upon the LTAs’ own methods of determining the assessed value of the real estate involved, the LTAs’ own determinations as to how to calculate their total tax receipts, and the other utilities’ specific accounting methods utilized in determining their state taxable values. While Appellants would appear to retain the right to participate in any Departmental audit of the annual reports of the LTAs, see 61 Pa. Code §159.1(d), they lack access to other utilities’ PURTA tax returns. Without this information, it is impossible to determine whether the other utility companies have paid their commensurate share of the initial PURTA tax, including whether the assessments against similarly situated utilities were uniformly ascertained in compliance with the Pennsylvania Constitution, see PA. CONST. art. XIII, §1 (pertaining to uniformity of taxation), or whether the Department acted correctly in accepting and/or settling these returns.2 In light of the above, it is evident that, absent some procedure by which these 2 Although each utility company must calculate its tax liability premised upon its state taxable value, see 72 P.S. §8102-A, and this value is statutorily defined as the cost minus depreciation as per books of any qualifying piece of realty, see 72 P.S. §8101- A(4), the methodology is not insulated from controversy, as reflected in litigation surrounding the allowable manner of determining asset depreciation, see, e.g., PP&L v. Commonwealth, 828 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003); PECO Engergy Co. v. Commonwealth, 828 A.2d 497 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003), exceptions overruled en banc, 848 A.2d 1099 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004), appeal pending, 73 MAP 2004, as well as, more generally, the question of whether a given parcel of realty is covered by this provision in the first instance. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 472 Pa. 530, 372 A.2d 815 (1977). Without access to the relevant calculations, moreover, there is no opportunity for a given utility to assess whether the accounting methods employed by other utility companies were applied correctly or the arithmetic computations involved were performed without error. [J-87A&B-2004] - 3 figures can be aired and tested, Appellants do not have the ability to confirm the accuracy of the data from which their own suptax liability is calculated.3 In accordance with the analysis furnished by the majority, Appellants’ substantial disadvantage in this regard may not serve as an adequate predicate to permit them to resist payment of the tax, so long as the Commonwealth provides a later cure by supplying an adequate post-deprivation procedure meeting the minimum requirements of due process. The United States Supreme Court has clarified that, in the field of taxation, if a state fails to offer any predeprivation process its post-deprivation proceedings must be “meaningful” in that they must provide taxpayers with a “fair opportunity to challenge the accuracy” of their tax obligations. McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Dep’t of Business Regulation of Florida, 496 U.S. 18, 39, 110 S. Ct. 2238, 2251 (1990). Plainly, there can be no meaningful post-deprivation opportunity to challenge the accuracy of a suptax assessment unless the taxpayer has access to all the other utilities’ PURTA returns (which, as noted, have a direct effect upon the taxpayer’s suptax obligation), as well as the Department’s records memorializing the manner in which it computed the PURTA assessment ratio.4 As discussed, Appellants contend that they lack the necessary information to determine the correctness of the Department’s suptax assessment, as some of the 3 Indeed, the Departmental notices do not even state the total size of the shortfall. Hence, the taxpayers are left without the ability, pre-deprivation, to assess whether the Department correctly calculated the PURTA assessment ratio based upon the shortfall and the cumulative state taxable value shown in the Section 1102-A(b) reports. 4 PURTA was amended after the tax period in question to specify that the LTAs’ Section 1106-A reports are public documents, notwithstanding Section 731 of the Fiscal Code. See 72 P.S. §8106-A(c) (as amended by the Act of May 12, 1999, P.L. 26, No. 4, §20). It appears that the utilities’ PURTA returns, however, remain confidential. In the present case, they were not disclosed to Appellants during discovery, as discussed infra. [J-87A&B-2004] - 4 necessary records are confidential under the Fiscal Code,5 which, inter alia, prohibits the divulgence of tax returns submitted to the Commonwealth except for “official purposes.” See 72 P.S. §731. While there may be some basis to argue that the official- purposes exception provides the trial court with discretion to require disclosure of these returns during post-deprivation judicial review, see Commonwealth v. Mellon Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 360 Pa. 103, 111-12, 61 A.2d 430, 435 (1948), overruled in part on other grounds, Commonwealth v. Caplan, 411 Pa. 563, 568 n.4, 192 A.2d 894, 896 n.4 (1963), I am unaware of any authority stating that the trial court must compel such disclosure; indeed, Appellants’ present efforts to view this information were not entirely successful, as the Commonwealth Court merely allowed redacted copies of certain of the utilities’ returns to be viewed by Appellants’ counsel only, and expressly prohibited Appellants themselves from having access to this data. See RR. 257a-58a. It thus appears that, even on post-deprivation review, the taxpayers were left with insufficient data to assess the accuracy of the Department’s derivation of the PURTA assessment ratio, which directly determined the size of their suptax obligation. As the Commonwealth Court stated in its initial opinion overruling the Department’s preliminary objections: The Commonwealth avers that the utilities’ problems with any lack of information will be solved merely by first paying the tax as demanded and then filing for a refund. . . . Here, Petitioners cannot meet their burden of proof in the refund process because the documents, assumptions, determinations and calculations are in the exclusive control of [the Department]. Without such information a refund petition cannot be properly drafted and there would be no substantial evidence in the record to sustain an 5 Act of April 9, 1929, P.L. 343 (as amended, 72 P.S. §§1-1804). [J-87A&B-2004] - 5 administrative appeal to the Board of Finance and Revenue or to this Court. Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. Judge, 758 A.2d 259, 266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).6 Under these circumstances, I would conclude that the post-deprivation process fails scrutiny under the Due Process Clause pursuant to the principles announced in McKesson, and would, accordingly, require a full refund of the suptaxes paid pending settlement (or other reasonably structured) proceedings at which Appellants can assess the accuracy of their tax obligations as reflected in the Department’s notices. 6 The Department maintains that the post-deprivation procedures provided by the Commonwealth comport with due process because Appellants have available administrative and judicial review, and during such review they are guaranteed the right to representation by counsel, oral and deposition testimony, affidavits and subpoenas, a written decision, and the like. See Brief for Appellees at 22-23. Absent access to the information necessary to test the accuracy of the amount of tax owed as stated by the Department, however, these facets of the post-deprivation process do not, by themselves, satisfy the McKeeson standard as recited above.