Opinion ID: 1904493
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiffs' Claim for Refund of All Taxes Paid under the Unconstitutional Statute.

Text: Having succeeded in getting the reciprocal truck taxes declared unconstitutional, plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to a refund of all moneys paid to the State on those unconstitutional taxes, including those paid prior to the establishment of the court-ordered escrow account on January 2, 1985. The Superior Court, however, limited their relief to reimbursement of the funds in the escrow account. We agree with the Superior Court's rejection of plaintiffs' claim to any refund of the pre-escrow payments. Plaintiffs first rely on Maine common law to support their claim for a full refund. Recognizing at least for the purposes of the present case that under Maine common law they are entitled to a refund of previously paid taxes only if they paid them under duress, see Berry v. Daigle, 322 A.2d 320, 326 (Me.1974), plaintiffs contend that the facts here satisfy that duress requirement. They urge that the mere fact that failure to pay the reciprocal truck tax constitutes a Class E crime is enough to invoke the implied duress doctrine. See Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. v. O'Connor, 223 U.S. 280, 286, 32 S.Ct. 216, 217, 56 L.Ed. 436 (1912). Maine, however, has never adopted that doctrine, although it was noted in Berry, 322 A.2d at 326 n. 4. In Maine, without a refund statute, in the context of taxation, duress arises only in those situations in which taxes are paid to avoid arrest or outright seizure of personal propertyin short, when failure to pay produces irreparable injury. Exxon Corp. v. King, 351 A.2d 534, 536 (Me.1976). The record contains no evidence of any arrests made or threatened, or of any actual or threatened seizure of property, because a trucker refused to pay the section 2243-C tax. Therefore, the Superior Court correctly found that the common law of Maine affords no remedy to plaintiffs other than a return of those funds paid into the escrow account on and after January 2, 1985. Second, plaintiffs urge that federal constitutional law requires that the State disgorge all back taxes paid pursuant to the unconstitutional section 2243-C. To support their theory they cite Carpenter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363, 369, 50 S.Ct. 121, 123, 74 L.Ed. 478 (1930), and Ward v. Board of County Commissioners, 253 U.S. 17, 24, 40 S.Ct. 419, 422, 64 L.Ed. 751 (1920), for the proposition that the fourteenth amendment requires a refund of any unconstitutional tax. Those cases, however, required refund of taxes paid under compulsion. Since we have already found that plaintiffs did not pay the section 2243-C taxes under duress or compulsion, those cases do not aid plaintiffs' position. Having failed on both their common law and federal constitutional arguments, plaintiffs fall back on a contention that they are entitled to a refund under 36 M.R.S.A. § 152, which in terms relieves the taxpayer from the adverse consequences of paying any tax: A taxpayer may pay any tax, ... without forfeiting any right to apply for a refund or an abatement or to seek review of the validity of the tax. No such tax ... need be paid ... under protest or under duress to entitle the taxpayer to apply for a refund or an abatement or to seek review of the validity of the tax. 36 M.R.S.A. § 152 (Supp.1985-1986) (emphasis added). Analysis of the statutory context of section 152, however, reveals that the truckers who have paid the reciprocal truck tax imposed by 29 M.R.S.A. § 2243-C are not given the benefit of the refund statute. Section 152, originally enacted as section 6 of title 36 by P.L. 1977, ch. 477, § 1, was reenacted with its present numerical designation by P.L. 1981, ch. 364, § 10, in connection with extensive administrative changes in the tax laws. In the same comprehensive 1981 enactment, id. §§ 5, 6, the legislature also prescribed the following definitions of the words tax and taxpayer as used in title 36: As used in this Title, unless the context otherwise indicates, the following terms have the following meanings. . . . . 5. Tax. Tax means the total amount required to be paid, withheld and paid over, or collected and paid over with respect to estimated or actual tax liability under this Title, including any interest or civil penalty relating thereto. . . . . 7. Taxpayer. Taxpayer means any person required to file a return under this Title or to pay, withhold and pay over or collect and pay over any tax imposed by this Title. 36 M.R.S.A. § 111 (Supp. 1985-1986) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs urge us to ignore the limiting definitions of tax and taxpayer, and to interpret the words any tax in 36 M.R. S.A. § 152 exactly as they would be read if they stood all by themselves. That we cannot do. Section 2243-C did not become effective until April 24, 1984. At that time, as well as at the time plaintiffs paid the taxes due under section 2243-C, the 1981 definitional amendments to title 36 were already in place and therefore plaintiffs were not taxpayers paying a tax for any purpose of title 36, including 36 M.R. S.A. § 152. The reciprocal truck taxes are not imposed under title 36, but rather under title 29. Thus plaintiffs may not use section 152 as a mechanism for obtaining a refund free of the common law requirement that they demonstrate that they paid the taxes under duress. [8] In construing a statute our duty is to give effect to the intent of the Legislature as evidenced by the language of the statute. If the meaning of the language is plain, we must interpret the statute to mean exactly what it says. Concord General Mutual Insurance Co. v. Patrons-Oxford Mutual Insurance Co., 411 A.2d 1017, 1020 (Me.1980). See also Opinion of the Justices, 460 A.2d 1341, 1345 (Me.1982); National Council on Compensation Insurance v. Superintendent of Insurance, 481 A.2d 775, 779 (Me.1984). The language used by the legislature plainly limited the relaxation of the common law refund requirements to taxes imposed under title 36. Because 29 M.R. S.A. § 2243-C does not impose a tax under title 36, plaintiffs do not have a statutory right to recover the taxes they paid thereunder. The Superior Court was correct in ordering a refund of only the moneys held in the escrow account.