Opinion ID: 2537799
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary Judgment Was Proper on the Statutory Claim.

Text: Falke argues that because the partial property tax exemption is available to all owner-occupied lots except those that are behind in their taxes, the ordinance granting the exemption effectively lowers the base level of taxation and creates a penalty for late payment in the form of denial of the exemption. Falke argues that in some cases this penalty is in excess of the twenty percent limit imposed by AS 29.45.250. To resolve this claim we must determine whether denial of the exemption is a penalty subject to the limits of AS 29.45.250. The phrasing of AS 29.45.250 suggests its drafters did not contemplate treating the denial of an exemption as a penalty. The statute states, in pertinent part, [a] penalty not to exceed 20 percent of the tax due may be added to all delinquent taxes. [19] The statute treats the penalty as an amount separate from the original amount due, calculated from the original amount due and added to the original amount due only after the failure to pay on time. A forgone exemption under the ordinance lacks these qualities. While the ordinance may function to penalize a property owner for delinquent taxes, the additional tax burden imposed is not added to [the] delinquent taxes. First, the amount of this additional burden is not due with the taxes that occasion the penalty, but with the following year's taxes, and so is not added to [the] delinquent taxes. Second, the amount of the additional burden is not added at all, as it is imposed as part of the original assessment of taxes in the year following the tax year for which tax is not promptly paid. The size of the additional tax burden is not calculated from, nor related to, the delinquent amount because the effects of a forgone exemption are felt in the year after a late payment. If assessed value changes dramatically so will the amount of the additional tax burden, making it unrelated to the amount of the tax that was paid late. Thus, to the extent the ordinance imposes an added tax burden, it is not one that is added to or calculated based on the amount due. Treating the ordinance as a penalty would thus be inconsistent with the wording of the statute. Where the wording of a statute is not ambiguous, but suggests a common sense interpretation, we will not give a different meaning to the statute without clear legislative history demonstrating that the common sense meaning is incorrect. As we have explained, [w]here the statute's meaning appears clear and unambiguous ... the party asserting a different meaning bears a correspondingly heavy burden of demonstrating contrary legislative intent. [20] Falke has not met this burden. Therefore, we determine that denial of the partial property tax exemption is not a penalty within the meaning of AS 29.45.250, and so is not subject to the statute's twenty percent limit.