Opinion ID: 1114341
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Energy Sources ExemptionCoke-on-Catalyst

Text: BP contends that coke-on-catalyst was exempted from use tax by La.Rev.Stat. 47:305D(1)(h), which exempted all energy sources when used for boiler fuel except refinery gas.... The Parish contends that the statutory exemption did not specifically provide[] that it applies to [local] sales and use tax levies, as required by La.Rev.Stat. 33:2716.1. The trial court held that coke-on-catalyst, when used as boiler fuel, qualified for the energy source exemption within the contemplation of Section 305D(1)(h) and that the statutory exemption applies to Ordinance No. 174 under La.Rev.Stat. 47:305D(6), which provides in part: The exemptions from the state sales and use tax provided in this Subsection shall be applicable to any sales and use tax levied by any local governmental subdivision or school board except as otherwise specifically provided in this Subsection. The trial judge thoroughly traced the legislative history of Section 305D(6) and correctly concluded that Section 305D(6)'s extension of exemptions to sales and use taxes levied by local governmental authorities clearly incorporated all of the exemptions listed in Section 305D(1), [13] including the exemption of energy sources when used for boiler fuel. We therefore agree that any coke-on-catalyst used by BP for boiler fuel was exempt from parish use tax. Although the trial court ruled that coke-on-catalyst, when used as boiler fuel, was exempt from taxation, the court nevertheless denied BP's demand for a refund because BP's evidence in support of its motion for summary judgment was insufficient to establish the amount of coke-on-catalyst that was used as boiler fuel. [14] The judgment of the trial court, rendered on motions for summary judgment, should not have dismissed BP's suits demanding refunds, but should merely have denied BP's motion for summary judgment for a specific amount of refund. [15] The denial of BP's motion for summary judgment because of failure to prove the amount of the refund merely relegated BP to proving at the trial on the merits the amount of the refund to which it is entitled for coke-in-catalyst used as boiler fuel. As to this issue, the suits should be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.