Opinion ID: 1242046
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Equal Protection Claims Against The Kenai Peninsula Borough

Text: In their complaint, the Douglases also alleged that the Borough violated their equal protection rights under the Alaska and United States Constitutions, by failing to collect the Borough tax from customers of General Telephone Company in Seward. The Douglases assert on appeal that the superior court erred in granting a Civil Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing their complaint on this issue for failure to state a claim against the Borough for which relief can be granted. [18] We hold that the superior court did err in granting the motion. The superior court stated as its reason for granting the motion to dismiss that the Douglases had no claim for relief against the Borough for failing to collect taxes from customers of General Telephone Company. We disagree. Other jurisdictions have granted standing, to citizens who have paid validly assessed taxes, to sue government entities for relief in the nature of mandamus and force uniform collection of the tax from citizens who have not been assessed at all or assessed at lower rates. Bussie v. Long, 286 So.2d 689 (La. App. 1973), cert. denied, 288 So.2d 354 (La. 1974); State ex rel. Miller v. Price, 3 Ohio St.2d 177, 209 N.E.2d 578 (1965). We agree with these decisions, observing that the higher potential tax burden which the Douglases suffer when the tax they pay is not collected from all taxpayers from whom it is legally due is sufficient interest to justify their standing to seek mandamus. [19] The fact that General Telephone Company has not been joined in the action, and that the relief sought involves assessing that company for taxes it failed to collect in the past, is not fatal to the claim. The Borough tax ordinance establishes a clear continuing legal liability upon a seller of services for taxes it failed to collect for the Borough. [20] The Borough has not demonstrated that enforcement of the ordinance is other than a ministerial duty of the Borough auditor normally subject to a writ of mandamus, nor is there any indication that General Telephone Company will be prevented by this decision from asserting any defenses it may have to enforcement of the tax through normal administrative and judicial channels. [21] The Douglases and the Borough also both moved for summary judgment on the equal protection issue, concurrent with the motion to dismiss, and both submitted affidavits to support their respective positions. From the record it is unclear whether the superior court excluded these materials from consideration in granting the motion to dismiss the pleading, or alternatively treated the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as a summary judgment motion, as required by Civil Rule 12(b). [22] Both parties have taken advantage of their opportunity to submit evidence in the record to support their motions for summary judgment, however, so there is little to be gained by remanding the issue to the superior court for determination. Therefore, in the interest of judicial efficiency, we will also review the superior court's ruling as an entry of summary judgment. This review is in accord with our recent decision in Martin v. Mears, 602 P.2d 421 (Alaska 1979) and other cases interpreting the identical Federal Civil Rule 12(b). [23] We hold that neither the Douglases nor the Borough were entitled to summary judgment on the question of whether unconstitutional discrimination occurred in collection of the tax. To avoid summary judgment once the moving party meets its burden, the non-moving party must produce competent evidence showing that there are issues of material fact to be tried. The respondent must set forth specific facts showing that it could produce admissible evidence reasonably tending to dispute the movant's evidence or establish an affirmative defense. Totem Marine Tug & Barge, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., 584 P.2d 15, 24 (Alaska 1978) (citations omitted). In order to avoid summary judgment on the issue of whether a violation of equal protection of the law has occurred under either the Alaska or United States Constitution, the Douglases must produce evidence tending to show a dispute exists over whether unequal enforcement of the tax has taken place, and whether the selective enforcement was part of an arbitrary or intentional plan to discriminate: [A]n individual who claims that selective enforcement has deprived him or her of equal protection under the state constitution must show `a deliberate and intentional plan to discriminate,' based upon some unjustifiable or arbitrary classification. There is a similar requirement for proof of a violation of equal protection rights under the federal constitution. See Mackay Telegraph and Cable v. Little Rock, 250 U.S. 94, 39 S.Ct. 428, 63 L.Ed. 863 (1919). State v. Reefer King Co., 559 P.2d 56, 65 (Alaska 1976), modified on other grounds, 562 P.2d 702 (Alaska 1977) (emphasis added). Mere errors of judgment by officials do not amount to unconstitutional discrimination, and the good faith of such officers will be presumed. Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield, 247 U.S. 350, 353, 38 S.Ct. 495, 62 L.Ed. 1154, 1156 (1918). Here, the Douglases have presented competent evidence tending to show that the tax has been applied unequally on a substantial scale. [24] Evidence in the form of various affidavits, answers to interrogatories, and correspondence was also presented showing that Borough officials permitted Glacier State to continue to collect tax on interborough and interstate calls for over a year after the Borough attorney sent them a letter informing them that the tax did not apply to such calls. The evidence shows that the opinion expressed in the letter given to Glacier State was contrary to formal Borough regulations in effect at the time requiring the tax to be collected on long-distance calls. This evidence places in question the bare denials by Borough representatives that responsible officials had any knowledge that the tax was being applied in a discriminatory manner. While the Douglases have by no means shown that they are likely to prevail in establishing that an intentional policy of discrimination was being followed by the Borough, they have presented sufficient competent evidence to place the factual question of the knowledge and intent of Borough officials in dispute. [25]