Court Opinion

ID: 9409010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-14 16:08:58.6192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:48.237223
License: Public Domain

Supreme Court

                                                    No. 2021-116-M.P.
                                                    (A.A. 20-72)
                                                    No. 2021-117-M.P.
                                                    (6CA 19-7653)

                                                    (Dissent begins on Page 31)

     Apex Oil Company, Inc.,           :
  individually and as Assignee of
          Glencore, Ltd.

                 v.                    :

State of Rhode Island, acting by and   :
   through Division of Taxation.

           NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision
           before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
           are requested to notify the Opinion Analyst, Supreme
           Court of Rhode Island, 250 Benefit Street, Providence,
           Rhode Island 02903, at Telephone (401) 222-3258 or
           Email:      opinionanalyst@courts.ri.gov,     of     any
           typographical or other formal errors in order that
           corrections may be made before the opinion is published.
                                                         Supreme Court

                                                         No. 2021-116-M.P.
                                                         (A.A. 20-72)
                                                         No. 2021-117-M.P.
                                                         (6CA 19-7653)

                                                         (Dissent begins on Page 31)

       Apex Oil Company, Inc.,            :
    individually and as Assignee of
            Glencore, Ltd.

                     v.                   :

 State of Rhode Island, acting by and     :
    through Division of Taxation.

         Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and Long, JJ.

                                    OPINION

         Justice Goldberg, for the Court. These consolidated cases came before the

Supreme Court on May 10, 2023, pursuant to a writ of certiorari upon petition of the

plaintiff, Apex Oil Company, Inc. (Apex). Apex seeks review of an order of the

Sixth Division District Court dismissing two actions that challenge the State of

Rhode Island Division of Taxation’s denial of Apex’s claim for a refund of

$4,280,039.44 paid for Motor Fuel Tax assessed on the purchase and sale of 300,000

barrels of oil. For the reasons set forth herein, we quash the order of the District

Court.
                                         -1-
                                 Facts and Travel

      This tax appeal arises from a series of transactions for the purchase and sale

of gasoline and concerns the application of the Motor Fuel Tax.1 General Laws 1956

§ 31-36-7(a) establishes a tax “on all taxable gallons of fuel sold or used in [the]

state.” Section 31-36-7(a) requires that:

             “Every distributor shall, on or before the twentieth (20th)
             day of each month, render a report to the tax administrator,
             * * * of the amount (number of gallons) of fuels purchased,
             sold, or used by the distributor within this state and the
             amount of fuels sold by the distributor without this state
             from fuels within this state during the preceding calendar
             month, and, if required by the tax administrator as to
             purchases, the name or names of the person or persons
             from whom purchased and the date and amount of each
             purchase, and as to sales, the name or names of the person
             or persons to whom sold and the amount of each sale
             * * *.”

Section 31-36-2 requires that “[e]very distributor shall, before continuing or

commencing to transact the business of a distributor, apply for registration as a

distributor at the office of the tax administrator” and obtain “a certificate of the

1
  We pause to note that this is not the only case in which the Division’s imposition
of the Motor Fuel Tax has been challenged. See Gunvor USA, LLC v. State of Rhode
Island, No. 2021-165-M.P. (a challenge to the imposition of the Motor Fuel Tax on
a transaction between Glencore, Ltd. and PetroChina International (America), Inc.,
pending before this Court); Gunvor USA, LLC v. State of Rhode Island, No.
2021-260-M.P. (also challenging the imposition of the Motor Fuel Tax on a
transaction between Glencore, Ltd. and PetroChina International (America), Inc.);
see also Gunvor USA, LLC v. State of Rhode Island, CA 20-2187 (same).
                                        -2-
registration” which “entitle[s] the distributor to continue or to commence to engage

in the business within th[e] state.” A distributor is defined as:

              “[A]ny person, association of persons, firm, or
              corporation, wherever resident or located, who or that
              shall import, or cause to be imported into this state, for use
              or for sale, fuels, and also any person, association of
              persons, firm, or corporation who or that shall produce,
              refine, manufacture, or compound fuels within this state.”
              Section 31-36-1(2).2

        The tax at the center of this dispute was levied on a transaction between Apex

and Glencore, Ltd. (Glencore) in which Apex purchased 300,000 barrels of gasoline

from Glencore. The gasoline at issue was the subject of numerous transactions

2
    General Laws 1956 § 31-36-16 also provides that:

              “Any person who shall receive fuels in any form and under
              any circumstances that shall preclude the collection of the
              tax provided for in this chapter, from the distributors, and
              shall then sell or use the fuels in any manner and under any
              circumstances that shall render the sale or use subject to
              the tax, shall be considered as a distributor, and shall make
              the same report, pay the same taxes, and be subject to all
              other provisions of this chapter relating to a distributor of
              the fuels; excepting, that the requirements under this
              chapter for the filing of a bond shall be discretionary with
              the tax administrator, and if the bond is required to be filed
              it shall be in an amount not to exceed seventy-five
              thousand dollars ($75,000).”

                                          -3-
between various entities—a series of transactions often referred to as a “chain

transaction.”3

      This chain transaction began on January 19, 2018, when Apex agreed to sell

300,000 barrels of gasoline to BP North America Petroleum, Inc. (BP). According

to Apex, when it entered into this contract, it did not yet have the 300,000 barrels of

gasoline it agreed to sell to BP. In order to fulfill its obligation to BP, on March 15,

2018, Apex purchased 300,000 barrels of gasoline from Glencore, which was

transferred to BP.4 BP in turn sold the gasoline to ExxonMobil. Thus, ownership

of the gasoline passed from Glencore, to Apex, then to BP, and finally to

ExxonMobil, the final link in the chain.

      After the purchase between Apex and BP was already complete, the 300,000

barrels of gasoline were loaded onto a ship, the Northern Ocean, on May 1, 2018, in

Antwerp, Belgium, and were transported across the Atlantic Ocean to a facility in

East Providence, Rhode Island, at the direction of the owner at that time,

ExxonMobil.      The gasoline arrived and was discharged at a pier owned by

3
  A chain transaction is the “consecutive suppl[y] of goods between three or more
legal entities, where the contractual obligations of all parties in the chain are
discharged by a single movement of goods from the first supplier in the chain to the
final customer.” ECJ AG Allows Belgian Coordination Centers Through 2010, 17 J.
Int’l Tax’n 5 (2006).
4
 The contract between Apex and BP provided that the 300,000 barrels of gasoline
would be “delivered at place” on the Atlantic Coast of the United States between
May 10, 2018, and May 20, 2018, on a BP approved vessel.
                                           -4-
ExxonMobil in East Providence on May 21, 2018, and was thereafter distributed by

ExxonMobil in the ordinary course of its business.

      As part of its contract with Glencore, Apex agreed to pay any taxes assessed

on the sale of the 300,000 barrels of gasoline. According to Apex, on May 14, 2018,

during a phone conversation, the State of Rhode Island Division of Taxation (the

Division) advised Apex that it “does not tax waterborne vessel chain transactions

occurring before the gasoline arrives in Rhode Island.” However, “[o]ut of an

abundance of caution” and in an attempt to avoid incurring any taxes on the

transaction, Apex applied for a motor fuel distributor registration certificate from the

Division in May of 2018, prior to the imposition of any tax, because under

§ 31-36-13, “any distributor shall be exempt from the payment of any tax on fuels

sold by the distributor to another distributor who is registered with the tax

administrator.” At the time of the sale between Glencore and Apex, Apex was not

a registered distributor in Rhode Island. The Division denied Apex’s application for

a certificate of registration on June 21, 2018, because it was not a “distributor within

Rhode Island.” The Division explained that “[i]n order to be considered a distributor

within Rhode Island, you must have storage facilities within our state” and, based

on Apex’s application, it did “not have storage facilities within Rhode Island” and

therefore did “not qualify as a [d]istributor within Rhode Island.”

                                         -5-
      Thus, according to Apex, based upon the Division’s response, and its

understanding of § 31-36-7, it was under the belief that Glencore would not be taxed

for the sale of the gasoline to Apex because the gasoline was not imported,

purchased, or sold within Rhode Island. Rather, Apex assumed that ExxonMobil—

the importer and distributor of the gasoline in Rhode Island—would be the entity

taxed for the gasoline.

      To Apex’s dismay, in October 2018, the Division imposed a Motor Fuel Tax

on the sale of the 300,000 barrels of gasoline from Glencore to Apex by way of a

letter to Glencore.5 According to Apex, a tax exceeding $4 million was imposed

because Apex was not a “licensed distributor” in Rhode Island. The tax was charged

to Glencore as the seller of the gasoline. The Division also imposed interest and

penalties on top of the tax as permitted by § 31-36-9. Glencore initially paid the tax

in October of 2018 and thereafter challenged only the interest and penalties assessed

on top of the tax, but did not challenge the amount of the tax itself; Glencore and the

Division entered into a settlement agreement regarding the penalties and interest.

      Glencore sought reimbursement from Apex in the amount of $4,280,039.44

5
 According to Apex, the Division “initially assessed the tax * * * in October 2018
by issuing a private letter ruling to Glencore based on limited information.”

                                         -6-
for the tax.6 Apex reimbursed Glencore in accordance with their agreement, and as

a result, Apex obtained “a full assignment of Glencore’s rights to obtain a refund

and challenge the Motor Fuel Tax * * *.”

        Believing the tax was improperly imposed on the transaction between

Glencore and Apex, Apex sought a refund from the Division. First, on January 15,

2019, it requested a private-letter ruling7 from the Division on its reasoning for

imposing the tax; the Division failed to respond substantively to this request for six

months and ultimately refused to issue a ruling. Subsequently, on May 31, 2019,

6
  Although not in the record before us, during oral argument, the parties represented
to the Court that Glencore sued Apex for reimbursement of the tax pursuant to the
terms of the contract in early 2019 in federal district court.
7
    According to the Division:

               “A General Informational Letter, (commonly referred to
               as a ‘Letter Ruling’) is unlike a Declaratory Order in that
               it generally seeks an interpretation of tax law or regulation
               without applying it to a specific set of facts. A General
               Informational Letter may be issued where it appears that
               general information only is requested, or where a request
               for a Declaratory Order does not comply with all the
               requirements for a Declaratory Order.                General
               Informational Letters may not be relied upon by any
               taxpayer other than the taxpayer who requested the
               information. General Informational Letters are not
               binding on the Tax Division if there has been a
               misstatement or omission of material facts or, on a
               prospective basis, if there has been a change in law or
               applicable regulations or a decision on point is issued by
               the Rhode Island or Federal Courts.” 280 RICR 20-00-5.3.
                                           -7-
based upon its assignment of Glencore’s rights, Apex submitted a claim for a refund

of the Motor Fuel Tax pursuant to § 31-36-13 which provides, in part:

                “Any person who shall purchase fuels upon which the tax
                provided in this chapter shall have been paid and shall sell
                the fuels outside this state or to the United States
                government, may be reimbursed the amount of the tax in
                the manner and subject to the conditions provided in this
                chapter. All claims for reimbursement shall be made
                under oath to the tax administrator upon forms to be
                obtained from the tax administrator, within two hundred
                forty (240) days from the date of the purchase of the fuels,
                and shall contain any information and proof that the tax
                administrator may require, that the claimant has paid the
                tax and that the fuels have been sold by the claimant
                outside this state or to the United States government.
                Claims for reimbursement shall be paid by the general
                treasurer from the general fund upon certification by the
                tax administrator and with the approval of the controller.”

Apex explained in its application that it sought a refund “because the * * * gasoline

at issue was sold outside of Rhode Island.” Section 31-36-9(7) also provides that

“[a]ny person aggrieved by any assessment, deficiency, or otherwise, shall notify the

tax administrator in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of mailing by the

tax administrator of the notice of the assessment and shall request a hearing relative

to it.”

          By way of a letter, dated June 6, 2019, the Division denied Apex’s claim for

a refund and asserted that Apex did not have a right to pursue a refund. As

justification for its decision, the Division first asserted that Apex’s request for a

refund was time-barred; because, it asserted, the statute of limitations for requesting
                                           -8-
a refund of the Motor Fuel Tax was 240 days from the date of the purchase of the

fuel, pursuant to § 31-36-13, the purchase date was May 24, 2018, and the claim for

a refund was submitted on May 31, 2019. As to the substance of Apex’s claim that

the tax was improperly imposed on the transaction between it and Glencore, the

Division concluded that, “based on information given to the [Division] regarding

[the] transaction[], the sale[] happened within Rhode Island[,]” making it subject to

the Motor Fuel Tax. Lastly, the Division noted that Apex itself was not the entity

that was charged the tax nor the entity that had paid the tax. As a result, the Division

concluded that Apex was not entitled to a refund.

      On June 25, 2019, prior to initiating an administrative appeal of the Division’s

denial of its claim for a refund, Apex filed a complaint in the Sixth Division District

Court (the first action) alleging constitutional violations (count one), violations of

the Motor Fuel Tax (count two), seeking a declaratory judgment that the tax applied

only to entities that import gasoline into Rhode Island (count three), and asserting

that the Division should be estopped from taxing the transaction based on the

Division’s representations to Apex (count four). The Division filed a motion to

dismiss, asserting that Apex lacked standing and had failed to exhaust its

administrative remedies. The Division also filed a motion to stay discovery and for

a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the District Court Rules of Civil

                                         -9-
Procedure. The trial judge denied the Division’s motion to dismiss and stayed all

proceedings in the case pending the outcome of Apex’s administrative appeal.

      On July 2, 2019, at the administrative level, Apex appealed the Division’s

decision denying its request for a refund of the tax and requested an administrative

hearing. In its appeal letter, Apex claimed that it had obtained a contractual

assignment of Glencore’s rights and therefore had standing to seek a refund of the

tax. Apex also asserted that the purchase and sale of the gasoline occurred outside

of Rhode Island, as Apex is an entity based in Missouri and Glencore an entity based

in New York, and furthermore, by the time the gasoline had reached Rhode Island,

title had passed to ExxonMobil—the entity Apex asserted should be responsible for

paying the Motor Fuel Tax and which had already paid the tax. Because the tax had

already been charged to ExxonMobil, and “[t]o the best of Apex’s understanding,

ExxonMobil * * * ha[d] paid all applicable taxes” Apex argued that the imposition

of the tax on the Apex-Glencore transaction resulted in an improper “double

taxation” on the same gasoline. It also asserted that the Division’s interpretation of

the statute of limitations violated its due-process rights because the Division did not

demand payment of the tax until October 2018, and further asserted that Apex had

initially sought a refund on January 15, 2019, within the limitations period.

      The Division moved to dismiss the appeal and argued that (1) Apex lacked

standing, (2) the doctrines of res judicata and administrative finality precluded

                                        - 10 -
Apex’s claims, and (3) the statute of limitations barred Apex’s appeal. A hearing

was held and, on October 15, 2020, the hearing officer issued a written decision

recommending that the Division’s motion to dismiss be granted. The hearing officer

first concluded that the 240-day statute of limitations within § 31-36-13 was not

applicable to Apex’s claim for a refund because Apex itself did not pay the tax to

the Division and thus could not properly seek reimbursement under the statute. The

hearing officer explained that, in order to properly challenge an assessment of the

Motor Fuel Tax, a taxpayer may invoke § 31-36-9(7), of which, according to the

hearing officer, Glencore, the entity that paid the tax, properly availed itself by

challenging the interest and penalties imposed on top of the tax assessment.

      As to the issue of standing, the hearing officer determined that Apex neither

had statutory standing nor had it suffered an injury in fact. On the issue of statutory

standing, the hearing officer explained that Apex did not pay the tax to the Division

at the time of the purchase of the gasoline and therefore could not properly seek

reimbursement under § 31-36-13. Because it could not seek reimbursement under

§ 31-36-13, it also could not appeal the tax assessment under § 31-36-9 because no

tax assessment was issued to it. The hearing officer also concluded that Apex had

not suffered an injury in fact because Glencore, not Apex, paid the tax and “[a]ny

injury that [Apex] suffered was from its contractual arrangement with [Glencore].”

                                        - 11 -
      Lastly, the hearing officer determined that even though Apex had received an

assignment of Glencore’s rights, Glencore had settled its appeal of the tax

assessment with the Division. Therefore, Glencore could not have challenged the

validity of the tax itself due to the doctrines of res judicata and administrative

finality. Thus, when Glencore assigned Apex its rights, those rights did not include

the right to challenge the validity of the tax. Accordingly, the hearing officer

concluded that Apex’s claim was barred by both res judicata and administrative

finality. After reviewing the hearing officer’s decision and recommendation, the tax

administrator adopted the decision.

      On November 27, 2020, Apex filed an administrative appeal of the Tax

Administrator’s decision in the Sixth Division District Court. The Division filed a

motion to dismiss in which it contended that Apex lacked standing to bring the

action, the action was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and administrative

finality, and Apex’s request for a refund was untimely.8

      On April 21, 2021, the trial judge consolidated both cases before the District

Court and a hearing was held on the motion to dismiss. The trial judge granted the

motion, concluding that because Apex’s claims were barred by res judicata, the Tax

8
  The Division also filed a motion to lift the stay imposed in the first action, which
the court granted.
                                        - 12 -
Administrator’s decision of dismissal was affirmed. As a result, both cases were

dismissed. Apex then filed petitions for writs of certiorari, which this Court granted.

                                Standard of Review

      “The General Assembly has directed that each appeal of a final decision of

the tax administrator ‘shall be an original, independent proceeding in the nature of a

suit in equity to set aside such final decision and shall be tried de novo and without

a jury’ in the District Court.” Dart Industries, Inc. v. Clark, 696 A.2d 306, 309 (R.I.

1997) (quoting G.L. 1956 § 8-8-24). “A party aggrieved by a final judgment of the

District Court in a tax proceeding may petition this Court ‘for a writ of certiorari to

review any questions of law involved.’” Id. (quoting G.L. 1956 § 8-8-32). “Our

review on a writ of certiorari is restricted to an examination of the record to

determine whether any competent evidence supports the decision and whether the

decision maker made any errors of law in that ruling.” In re McBurney Law Services,

Inc., 798 A.2d 877, 881 (R.I. 2002) (quoting Asadoorian v. Warwick School

Committee, 691 A.2d 573, 577 (R.I. 1997)). “In reviewing a District Court’s

decision on a tax matter, brought before us under § 8-8-32, we do not weigh the

evidence in the record to resolve disputes of fact. * * * Rather, we address questions

of law involving the applicability of a statute to undisputed facts.” Rollins Hudig

Hall of Rhode Island, Inc. v. Clark, 785 A.2d 523, 527 (R.I. 2001) (internal quotation

marks omitted).

                                        - 13 -
      “The sole function of a motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the

complaint.” Benson v. McKee, 273 A.3d 121, 127 (R.I. 2022) (quoting Gannon v.

City of Pawtucket, 200 A.3d 1074, 1077 (R.I. 2019)). “In reviewing the grant of a

motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), this Court applies the same standard as

the hearing justice.”9 Barrette v. Yakavonis, 966 A.2d 1231, 1233 (R.I. 2009). “[A]

motion to dismiss may be granted only if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that

a plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any conceivable set of facts.” Willner

v. South County Hospital, 222 A.3d 1251, 1255 (R.I. 2020) (quoting Dent v. PRRC,

Inc., 184 A.3d 649, 653 (R.I. 2018)). “[A] determination of res judicata generally

requires the court to look beyond the pleadings to the judgment and other pertinent

portions of the record in the prior action * * *.” DiBattista v. State, Department of

Children, Youth & Families, 717 A.2d 640, 642 (R.I. 1998) (mem.). “Ordinarily,

when ruling on a motion to dismiss * * * ‘a court may not consider any documents

that are outside of the complaint, or not expressly incorporated therein, unless the

motion is converted into one for summary judgment.’” Chase v. Nationwide Mutual

Fire Insurance Company, 160 A.3d 970, 973 (R.I. 2017) (quoting Alternative

Energy, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 267 F.3d 30, 33 (1st Cir.

9
 Rule 12(b)(6) of the District Court Civil Rules is identical to Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court will look to cases interpreting
certain Superior Court rules for guidance in interpreting District Court rules. See
Verizon New England Inc. v. Savage, 267 A.3d 647, 650-51 n.4 (R.I. 2022).
                                         - 14 -
2001)). “There is, however, a narrow exception for documents the authenticity of

which are not disputed by the parties; for official public records; for documents

central to plaintiffs’ claim; or for documents sufficiently referred to in the

complaint.” Id. “In our review, ‘[w]e will assume[ ] the allegations contained in the

complaint to be true and view * * * the facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff[].’” Warfel v. Town of New Shoreham, 178 A.3d 988, 991 (R.I. 2018)

(quoting Audette v. Poulin, 127 A.3d 908, 911 (R.I. 2015)).

      Whether plaintiff has standing to bring an appeal is a mixed question of law

and fact. Cummings v. Shorey, 761 A.2d 680, 684 (R.I. 2000). “A trial justice’s

findings on mixed questions of law and fact are generally entitled to the same

deference as the justice’s findings of fact.” Id. (quoting Hawkins v. Town of Foster,

708 A.2d 178, 182 (R.I. 1998)). “But, when those mixed questions of law and fact

impact constitutional matters, we shall review the findings de novo * * *.” Id.

Furthermore, “[t]he determination of whether [res judicata] should be applied

presents a question of law * * * and therefore we shall review this issue de novo.”

Casco Indemnity Company v. O’Connor, 755 A.2d 779, 782 (R.I. 2000).

                                      Analysis

      On appeal, Apex claims that (1) it has standing because it suffered an injury

in fact and is the beneficiary of express statutory authority granting standing to seek

a refund of the Motor Fuel Tax; (2) the trial judge erred in concluding that res

                                        - 15 -
judicata bars its appeal; and (3) the doctrine of administrative finality does not apply

to bar its claims.10 We address these claims in turn.

                                      Standing

      The Division asserts that Apex has neither standing arising from an injury in

fact nor from statute.11 According to the Division, Apex cannot have suffered an

injury in fact because it was not “the entity that paid the subject tax.” The Division

argues that “it [was] not the assessment of the motor fuel tax, or the statute imposing

such assessment, that caused Apex’s alleged injury, but rather the terms of a contract

between Apex and Glencore, who actually paid the motor fuel tax.” As to statutory

standing, the Division argues that Apex does not have standing pursuant to

§ 31-36-13 because Apex is not entitled to a refund as “it cannot provide proof that

it paid the tax.” In the Division’s view, Glencore, as the taxpayer, has exclusive

10
   Apex also claims that (1) the Division’s refusal to consider the merits of its appeal
violate its due-process rights; (2) the Division exceeded its authority in imposing the
Motor Fuel Tax on its transaction with Glencore which occurred outside of Rhode
Island; and (3) the assessment of the tax on the Apex-Glencore transaction resulted
in an improper “double taxation” on the same gasoline. Because Apex’s appeal was
dismissed on procedural grounds, we conclude that the merits of Apex’s claims are
reserved for the trial judge on remand. We therefore decline to address these claims.
11
  Although the trial judge did not address the issue of standing, the hearing officer
determined that Apex had neither statutory standing, nor had it suffered an injury in
fact. In light of this decision, and because the issue is likely to arise on remand, we
address it. See School Committee of City of Providence v. Board of Regents for
Education, 112 R.I. 288, 294, 308 A.2d 788, 791 (1973) (explaining that procedural
questions “which, because they are likely to arise on remand, should now be
decided”).
                                         - 16 -
standing under § 31-36-13 to request a refund.

      Apex, on the other hand, contends that it has standing because it has suffered

an injury in fact and because it is the beneficiary of express statutory authority

granting standing set forth in § 31-36-13. Specifically, Apex argues that because it

paid more than $4 million for the Motor Fuel Tax, it has suffered an injury that is

concrete and particularized and, therefore, has standing to challenge the tax on its

own account, separate and apart from the assignment from Glencore. Apex also

asserts that § 31-36-13 confers standing. According to Apex, the statute “permits

‘any person who shall purchase fuels upon which the tax is provided’ to seek

reimbursement” and Apex is such a person as it purchased 300,000 barrels of

gasoline which was taxed. (Quoting § 31-36-13.) Lastly, Apex contends that it has

standing pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 9-2-8, which confers standing based upon its

assignment from Glencore. We conclude that Apex has suffered an injury in fact

and therefore has standing to challenge the Division’s imposition of the Motor Fuel

Tax on its purchase of gasoline from Glencore.

      Significantly, the record indicates that chain transactions generally are

nontaxable events when the parties are entities that are registered with the Division.

Apex contends that its application for a motor fuel distributor registration certificate

was rejected by the Division based on its determination that Apex was not a

“distributor within Rhode Island” and did “not have storage facilities within Rhode

                                         - 17 -
Island” and therefore did “not qualify as a [d]istributor within Rhode Island.” Apex

challenges this denial. Certainly, if Apex had been a registered distributor, this case

would not be before us. See § 31-36-13 (“[A]ny distributor shall be exempt from the

payment of any tax on fuels sold by the distributor to another distributor who is

registered with the tax administrator.”).

      “It is well settled that a necessary predicate to this Court’s exercise of

jurisdiction is an actual, justiciable controversy.” H.V. Collins Company v. Williams,

990 A.2d 845, 847 (R.I. 2010). “For a claim to be justiciable, two elemental

components must be present: (1) a plaintiff with the requisite standing and (2) some

legal hypothesis which will entitle the plaintiff to real and articulable relief.” Id.

(quoting N & M Properties, LLC v. Town of West Warwick, 964 A.2d 1141, 1145

(R.I. 2009)). “To determine whether a plaintiff has standing to sue, the court must

focus on the party who is advancing the claim rather than on the issue the party seeks

to have adjudicated.” Dauray v. Mee, 109 A.3d 832, 840 (R.I. 2015) (quoting N &

M Properties, 964 A.2d at 1145). “This [C]ourt * * * requires a complaint to contain

specific statements from which standing may be inferred.” Berberian v. Solomon,

122 R.I. 259, 262, 405 A.2d 1178, 1180 (1979). “In the absence of any allegations

concerning standing, we are not at liberty to presume standing.” Id.

      There are two types of standing, arising from either an injury in fact or a

statute. See Tanner v. Town Council of Town of East Greenwich, 880 A.2d 784, 792

                                        - 18 -
(R.I. 2005) (“A party acquires standing either by suffering an injury in fact or as the

beneficiary of express statutory authority granting standing.”).

      We confine our focus to whether Apex has suffered an injury in fact. “The

standing inquiry is satisfied when a plaintiff has suffered some injury in fact,

economic or otherwise.” Dauray, 109 A.3d at 840 (quoting N & M Properties, 964

A.2d at 1145). “Injury in fact has been described as an invasion of a legally protected

interest which is (a) concrete and particularized * * * and (b) actual or imminent, not

conjectural or hypothetical.” Haviland v. Simmons, 45 A.3d 1246, 1256 (R.I. 2012)

(quoting Pontbriand v. Sundlun, 699 A.2d 856, 862 (R.I. 1997)). “The line is not

between a substantial injury and an insubstantial injury. The line is between injury

and no injury.” Pontbriand, 699 A.2d at 862 (quoting Matunuck Beach Hotel, Inc.

v. Sheldon, 121 R.I. 386, 396, 399 A.2d 489, 494 (1979)). Furthermore, “[t]he

part[y] bringing the action ‘must demonstrate that [it has] a stake in the outcome that

distinguishes [its] claims from the claims of the public at large.’” Benson, 273 A.3d

at 129 (quoting In re 38 Studios Grand Jury, 225 A.3d 224, 233 (R.I. 2020)). “[T]he

essence of the question of standing is whether the party seeking relief has alleged

such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to ensure concrete

adverseness that sharpens the presentation of the issues upon which the court

depends for an illumination of the questions presented.” Narragansett Indian Tribe

v. State, 81 A.3d 1106, 1110 (R.I. 2014) (quoting Blackstone Valley Chamber of

                                        - 19 -
Commerce v. Public Utilities Commission, 452 A.2d 931, 933 (R.I. 1982)).

      “Moreover, ‘there must be a causal connection between the injury and the

conduct complained of—the injury has to be fairly * * * trace[able] to the challenged

action of the defendant, and not * * * th[e] result [of] the independent action of some

third party not before the court.’” Mruk v. Mortgage Electronic Registration

Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527, 535 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,

504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). “Lastly, ‘it must be likely, as opposed to merely

speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.’” Id. (quoting

Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).

      Viewing the allegations in its complaint in the light most favorable to Apex,

we are of the opinion that Apex has met the standing requirement because it has

suffered an injury in fact fairly traceable to the Division, the principal actor in this

controversy. Apex claims that the Division improperly denied it a motor fuel

distributor registration certificate, which, we again note, would have exempted the

Glencore-Apex transaction from the Motor Fuel Tax. See § 31-36-13. Apex further

claims that the Division improperly levied the Motor Fuel Tax on the transaction

based on § 31-36-7, which permits the Division to impose the tax on “fuels

purchased, sold, or used by [a] distributor within this state and the amount of fuels

sold by [a] distributor without this state from fuels within this state * * *.” Apex

contends that its purchase of the gasoline from Glencore occurred wholly outside of

                                         - 20 -
Rhode Island and, therefore, should not be subject to the Motor Fuel Tax established

by § 31-36-7. Apex has a personal stake in the outcome of the merits of its claim

that the Division improperly levied a tax on the Glencore-Apex transaction. See

Benson, 273 A.3d at 129. Although Glencore paid the tax to the Division, it was

reimbursed by Apex and, thus, Apex paid more than $4 million to Glencore as a

result of the Division’s imposition of the tax on the Glencore-Apex transaction.

      Accordingly, we reject the Division’s assertion that, simply because Apex was

not the entity that paid the tax, it has not suffered an injury in fact. Apex has suffered

substantial economic injury in fact in excess of $4 million. This economic injury is

concrete and particularized; it is actual, not conjectural or hypothetical. See

Haviland, 45 A.3d at 1256. We are therefore satisfied that Apex possesses the

requisite personal stake in the outcome of this controversy and therefore has suffered

an injury in fact.

      The Division argues that to the extent Apex has suffered an injury, there was

no causal connection between that injury and its decision to assess the tax.

Specifically, the Division contends that “it [was] not the assessment of the motor

fuel tax, or the statute imposing such assessment, that caused Apex’s alleged injury,

but rather the terms of a contract between Apex and Glencore, who actually paid the

motor fuel tax.” Although Apex entered into an agreement with Glencore to

reimburse it for any tax levied on the transaction of its own volition, Apex’s injury

                                          - 21 -
is “trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant * * *.” See Mruk, 82 A.3d

at 535 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). Thus, the action of the Division, namely,

the Division’s decision to deny Apex a certificate and then impose the tax were

traceable to the Division and coalesced in Apex’s injury. Apex’s injury was not the

result of any independent action of some third party not before the Court. See id. We

therefore conclude that there is a causal connection between the Division’s

imposition of the Motor Fuel Tax on Apex’s purchase of the subject gasoline and

Apex’s injury.

      Because we have determined that Apex has suffered an injury in fact, we

conclude that it is vested with standing to challenge the validity of the Division’s

imposition of the Motor Fuel Tax on its transaction with Glencore for the purchase

of the 300,000 barrels of gasoline. See Tanner, 880 A.2d at 792.12

                                   Res Judicata

      The Division next contends that the trial judge properly dismissed Apex’s

claims based upon the doctrine of res judicata. Specifically, the Division argues

that, because Glencore entered into a settlement agreement regarding the penalty and

interest assessed on top of the Motor Fuel Tax, Apex is precluded from challenging

the Motor Fuel Tax in the first instance. Apex, however, claims that the trial judge

12
  Because we conclude that Apex has suffered an injury in fact, affording it standing
to bring its claims, we need not address the issue of whether Apex has statutory
standing.
                                       - 22 -
erred in concluding that res judicata served to bar its claims because neither the

elements of issue preclusion nor claim preclusion are satisfied in this case.

      “The doctrine of res judicata relates to the preclusive effect of a final judgment

in an action between the parties.” Plunkett v. State, 869 A.2d 1185, 1187 (R.I. 2005).

“This doctrine ensures that judicial resources are not wasted on multiple and possibly

inconsistent resolutions of the same lawsuit.” Id. (quoting ElGabri v. Lekas, 681

A.2d 271, 275 (R.I. 1996)). As this Court has previously explained, “the term ‘res

judicata’ is commonly used to refer to two preclusion doctrines: (1) collateral

estoppel or issue preclusion; and (2) res judicata or claim preclusion.” Id. at 1188;

see also Foster-Glocester Regional School Committee v. Board of Review, 854 A.2d

1008, 1014 n.2 (R.I. 2004) (“The doctrine of res judicata involves both the concepts

of ‘claim preclusion’ and ‘issue preclusion.’”) (quoting 1 Restatement (Second)

Judgments 2d ch. 1, Intro. at 1, 2 (1982)). This Court has opined that these doctrines

should not “be mechanically applied, for [they are] capable of producing

extraordinarily harsh and unfair results.” Casco, 755 A.2d at 782 (quoting

Remington Rand Corp. v. Amsterdam-Rotterdam Bank, N.V., 68 F.3d 1478, 1486

(2d Cir. 1995)).    “To avoid unfairness, courts have declined to apply [these

doctrines] in situations in which [they] would lead to * * * inequitable result[s].” Id.

“The burden is upon the party asserting res judicata * * *.” Huntley v. State, 63 A.3d

526, 532 (R.I. 2013) (quoting 47 Am. Jur. 2d Judgments § 648 at 222 (2006)).

                                         - 23 -
      “Generally speaking, res judicata or claim preclusion ‘relates to the effect of

a final judgment between the parties to an action and those in privity with those

parties.’” Lennon v. Dacomed Corporation, 901 A.2d 582, 590 (R.I. 2006) (quoting

E.W. Audet & Sons, Inc. v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. of Newark, New Jersey,

635 A.2d 1181, 1186 (R.I. 1994)). “Claim preclusion prohibits the ‘relitigation of

all the issues that were tried or might have been tried in the original suit.’” Id.

(emphasis omitted) (quoting E.W. Audet & Sons, 635 A.2d at 1186). “Claim

preclusion refers to the effect of a judgment in foreclosing litigation of a matter that

never has been litigated, because of a determination that it should have been

advanced in an earlier suit. Claim preclusion therefore encompasses the law of

merger and bar.” Plunkett, 869 A.2d at 1188 (quoting Migra v. Warren City School

District Board of Education, 465 U.S. 75, 77 n.1 (1984)); see also Torrado

Architects v. Rhode Island Department of Human Services, 102 A.3d 655, 659 (R.I.

2014) (“The principle underlying the rule of [res judicata] * * * is that a party who

once has had a chance to litigate a claim before an appropriate tribunal usually ought

not to have another chance to do so.”) (quoting Huntley, 63 A.3d at 532).

      Importantly, “[c]laim preclusion * * * does not require that the issue to be

precluded has actually been litigated or necessarily decided.           Rather, claim

preclusion ‘prohibits the relitigation of all issues that were tried or might have been

tried in the original suit * * *.’” Reynolds v. First NLC Financial Services, LLC, 81

                                         - 24 -
A.3d 1111, 1118 n.6 (R.I. 2014) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Bossian v. Anderson,

991 A.2d 1025, 1027 (R.I. 2010)). “Usually asserted in a subsequent action based

upon the same claim or demand, the doctrine precludes the relitigation of all the

issues that were tried or might have been tried in the original suit * * *.” Id. at 1115

(quoting E.W. Audet & Sons, 635 A.2d at 1186). Claim preclusion will bar a second

action “if the following three requirements are fulfilled: (1) the parties are the same

or in privity with the parties of the previous proceeding; (2) an identity of issues in

both proceedings; and (3) a valid final judgment on the merits has been entered in

the previous proceeding.” Lennon, 901 A.2d at 591.

      The first element that we examine is whether the party against whom claim

preclusion is asserted is identical to, or in privity with, a party involved in the

settlement agreement. See Lennon, 901 A.2d at 591. Because Apex was not a party

to the settlement agreement, in order for claim preclusion to apply, Apex must have

been in privity with Glencore for purposes of the settlement agreement. See

Reynolds, 81 A.3d at 1115 (“Determining whether there is ‘identity of parties’

requires resolving ‘whether the parties to this second action are identical to or in

privity with the parties involved in the [prior action].’”) (quoting E.W. Audet & Sons,

635 A.2d at 1186). The Division contends that Apex is in privity with Glencore by

way of the assignment. Apex, however, argues that, despite the assignment, it is not

in privity with Glencore as it relates to the settlement agreement because, at the time

                                         - 25 -
the agreement was reached, Apex and Glencore did not share a commonality of

interest such that Glencore did not sufficiently represent Apex’s interests.

      “Under the concept of privity, a non-party may be bound by a prior judgment

if that party substantially controlled or was represented by a party to the original

action.” Commercial Union Insurance Company v. Pelchat, 727 A.2d 676, 680 (R.I.

1999). “Under Rhode Island law, privity is defined by a commonality of interests.”

Lennon, 901 A.2d at 591. More specifically, “[p]arties are in privity when there is

a commonality of interest between the two entities and when they sufficiently

represent each other’s interests.” Id. (quoting Duffy v. Milder, 896 A.2d 27, 36 (R.I.

2006)). “Simply stated, a finding of separate and distinct entities does not define

our privity analysis.” Id.

      We are unconvinced that Glencore’s assignment of its rights to Apex

establishes that the parties were in privity at the time the settlement was reached. In

its reply brief, Apex asserts that Glencore granted it the assignment after Glencore

entered into the settlement agreement with the Division. Taking the facts in the light

most favorable to Apex, we are hard-pressed to conclude that Glencore and Apex

shared a commonality of interests at the time of the settlement agreement such that

Glencore adequately represented Apex’s interests. See Lennon, 901 A.2d at 591.

      Based upon their contract for the purchase and sale of the 300,000 barrels of

gasoline, Apex was required to reimburse Glencore for any taxes imposed on

                                        - 26 -
Glencore; the contract did not address penalties or interest that could be imposed in

addition to the tax itself. Thus, Glencore had an incentive to challenge the penalties

and interest as the contract did not require Apex to reimburse Glencore those fees.

However, having been fully reimbursed for the tax itself, Glencore had no incentive

to mount a challenge to the Division’s authority to impose the tax. Undoubtedly,

challenging the merits of the tax itself would have been an onerous task for Glencore;

and an unnecessary and risky undertaking. Because Glencore was reimbursed by

Apex for the amount of the tax, a challenge could jeopardize its hopes of relief from

the interest and penalties. Compare Shannahan v. Moreau, 202 A.3d 217, 228 (R.I.

2019) (holding that privity existed between a city and a trust where the trust was the

city’s insurer and therefore “directly represent[ed] the interests of the city” and

where pursuant to a consent order “the [t]rust ha[d] retained all defenses that the city

would have had”), with Casco, 755 A.2d at 782 (explaining that “it would be unfair

to apply [res judicata] ‘[i]f a defendant in the first action is sued for small or nominal

damages, [because] he may have little incentive to defend vigorously’”) (quoting

Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 330 (1979)). Because Glencore had

no incentive to challenge the merits of the assessment of the Motor Fuel Tax itself,

it did not represent Apex’s interest during the settlement negotiations. We therefore

conclude that Apex was not in privity with Glencore at the time the settlement

agreement was reached. Thus, res judicata cannot apply to bar Apex’s claims.

                                          - 27 -
      We also pause to note that the Division knew that Apex had an interest in the

outcome of the settlement discussions, separate and apart from Glencore. In the

Division’s settlement offer letter, it noted that Glencore had “provided information”

to the Division “that referred to other entities that are not Glencore” by way of a

letter from Glencore “dated March 8, 2019.” The Division declined to engage and

responded that “[p]ursuant to Rhode Island state law, the Division is prohibited from

discussing other taxpayers’ information with unauthorized parties.”

      Because the determination that Apex was not in privity with Glencore defeats

the Division’s assertion of claim preclusion, we need not address the other

elements.13

                              Administrative Finality

      The Division last argues that Apex’s claims should be precluded by the

doctrine of administrative finality because, it asserts, Glencore “resolved the matter

13
   To the extent the Division asserts that issue preclusion should apply to bar Apex’s
claims, we note that issue preclusion requires that the issue sought to be precluded
“must actually have been litigated in the prior proceeding * * *.” Reynolds v. First
NLC Financial Services, LLC, 81 A.3d 1111, 1118 n.5 (R.I. 2014). The issue Apex
raises in this case is whether the Division improperly levied the Motor Fuel Tax on
its purchase of gasoline from Glencore, which, it asserts, occurred wholly outside of
Rhode Island. This issue was not litigated and was certainly not decided in the
settlement proceedings between Glencore and the Division. See Restatement
(Second) Judgments § 27 cmt. e (1982) (“In the case of a judgment entered by
confession, consent, or default, none of the issues is actually litigated. Therefore,
[issue preclusion] does not apply with respect to any issue in a subsequent action.”).
We therefore conclude that Apex’s claims are not barred by the doctrine of issue
preclusion.
                                        - 28 -
through the administrative process by way of a settlement of the assessment * * *.”

Apex, however, contends that administrative finality should not be applied to bar its

claims because the doctrine applies only where an initial request for tax relief was

denied and because it is a different applicant from Glencore.

      “Rhode Island * * * [has] promulgated a doctrine of administrative finality.”

Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Associates, Ltd. v. Nolan, 755 A.2d 799, 808 (R.I.

2000). “Under this doctrine, when an administrative agency receives an application

for relief and denies it, a subsequent application for the same relief may not be

granted absent a showing of a change in material circumstances during the time

between the two applications.” Id. “While the rule is sound, it is operative only if

the relief sought in each case is substantially similar.” May-Day Realty Corporation

v. Board of Appeals of City of Pawtucket, 107 R.I. 235, 237, 267 A.2d 400, 402

(1970); see also Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Associates, 755 A.2d at 808 (“This

rule applies as long as the outcome sought in each application is substantially similar

* * * even if the two applications each rely on different legal theories.”). Although

related, the doctrines of administrative finality and res judicata are distinct:

             “They are related in that each one acts to partially or
             wholly preclude an administrative agency from revisiting
             an earlier decision. But, despite this similarity, there is an
             important difference between them. Res adjudicata
             functions as an absolute bar to a second cause of action on
             any matters that were actually raised or that could have
             been raised in the first proceeding. * * * Administrative
             finality, on the other hand, provides for a qualified and
                                         - 29 -
              limited preclusion, wherein a second application for
              substantially similar outcome from an administrative
              agency is barred unless the applicant can demonstrate a
              change in material circumstances between the two
              applications.” Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Associates,
              755 A.2d at 808-09.

In sum, the doctrine “prevents repetitive duplicative applications for the same relief,

thereby conserving the resources of the administrative agency and of interested third

parties that may intervene.” Id. at 810. “The purpose of the doctrine is to promote

consistency in administrative decision-making, such that if the circumstances

underlying the original decision have not changed, the decision will not be revisited

in a later application.” Id.

       We cannot conclude, in the circumstances before us, that the doctrine of

administrative finality applies in this case. In deBourgknecht v. Rossi, 798 A.2d 934

(R.I. 2002), we held that “[t]he doctrine requires that the initial application for tax

relief be denied.” deBourgknecht, 798 A.2d at 938. Furthermore, Glencore’s request

for relief in the initial proceedings sought only penalty and interest abatement.

Apex’s request for relief, on the other hand, requested a refund of the tax itself based

upon its assertion that the tax was improperly imposed. Thus, we conclude that the

two requests were not the same or substantially similar. Compare May-Day Realty

Corporation, 107 R.I. at 237, 267 A.2d at 402 (holding that a permit request to erect

two ten-family apartment houses was not substantially similar to a permit request to

construct a single apartment building containing one hundred units such that the
                                         - 30 -
doctrine of administrative finality did not apply), with Costa v. Gagnon, 455 A.2d

310, 313 (R.I. 1983) (holding that two separate petitions seeking approval of auto-

body-shop use were substantially similar despite the fact that each petition asserted

a different legal theory and therefore the second petition was barred by the doctrine

of administrative finality).

                                     Conclusion

      For the reasons set forth herein, the order of the District Court is quashed. The

papers in this case may be returned to the District Court with our decision endorsed

thereon.

      Justice Long, dissenting. In petitioning this Court for the issuance of a

common law writ of certiorari in these consolidated cases, Apex made an

unequivocal allegation: The Division “unlawfully imposed a $4 million plus Rhode

Island Motor Fuel Tax on Apex.” (Emphasis added.) Apex further alleged that both

the Tax Administrator and the district court have denied it the ability to obtain a

remedy because “both committed error by granting motions to dismiss on threshold

issues.” After review of the operative pleadings and consideration of the parties’

written and oral arguments, I disagree that Apex has pled facts sufficient to establish

that Apex, individually or as assignee of Glencore, is a proper party to challenge the

                                        - 31 -
Division’s imposition of the motor fuel tax on the March 15, 2018 transaction

between Apex and Glencore. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

      The facts as pled in the operative pleadings reveal that Apex, an energy

commodities trader, engaged in a sophisticated chain transaction concerning the

purchase and sale of hundreds of thousands of barrels of gasoline in international

waters. The dispute at issue in this appeal concerns the March 15, 2018 transaction

between Apex and Glencore: the Division taxed Glencore months after the

transaction because Apex was not a licensed distributor. However, pursuant to an

agreement between Apex and Glencore, Apex was responsible for any tax assessed

on the transaction; Apex reimbursed Glencore accordingly and received “a full

assignment of Glencore’s rights to obtain a refund and challenge the Motor Fuel Tax

and Oil Spill Fee.”1

      At every stage of this litigation, Apex has asserted its “claim on its own and

as an assignee of Glencore.” For example, in the initial denial-of-claim letter issued

by the Division on June 6, 2019, the revenue agent writes, “[p]lease be aware, we

did not receive supporting documents regarding the assignment rights from Glencore

* * *.” When Apex filed its first complaint in district court, it did so individually

and as assignee of Glencore. Similarly, when Apex administratively appealed the

1
 As the majority indicates in footnote 6, Glencore filed a breach-of-contract suit
against Apex in 2019 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.
                                        - 32 -
denial of its claim for refund, it did so individually and under the assignment from

Glencore.    Consequently, after the Division filed a motion to dismiss the

administrative appeal, the decision of the hearing officer evaluated the standing of

Apex to file a claim for refund both on its own and pursuant to the assignment from

Glencore.

      With regard to the standing of Apex to file a claim for refund on its own, the

hearing officer concluded that Apex did not have statutory standing because Apex

did not pay the tax in question to the Division. The hearing officer also determined

that Apex did not have standing because “[a]ny injury that [Apex] suffered is not

because the Division assessed a tax on it.” In reaching this conclusion, the hearing

officer noted that standing required that the injury in fact have a causal connection

to the actions of defendant and “[h]ere, the Division’s challenged action – the tax

assessment to [Glencore] – did not cause a particular and concrete injury to [Apex]

by the Division. Rather, [Apex] is trying to recoup its contractual payment to

[Glencore] from the Division.”

      Concerning the standing of Apex to file a claim for refund pursuant to the

assignment, the hearing officer noted that Glencore had previously “appealed the

assessment and challenged the interest and penalties connected to the tax assessment

and settled with the Division.” Although Glencore thereafter assigned its right to

challenge the assessment to Apex, because Glencore had already settled with the

                                       - 33 -
Division, any further challenge to the assessment would be barred by the doctrines

of res judicata and administrative finality.       Consequently, the hearing officer

reasoned, the “assignment to challenge the tax assessment does not give [Apex]

standing to challenge something that cannot be challenged.”

         Having determined that Apex did not have standing to file a claim for refund

individually or under the assignment from Glencore, the hearing officer nonetheless

analyzed whether the doctrine of res judicata also precluded Apex from pursuing a

claim for refund under the assignment from Glencore.              The hearing officer

considered that, under the assignment, Apex “is the same party as [Glencore]” and

“identity of issues is the same since [Apex] is trying to challenge the motor fuel tax

assessment that the Division issued to [Glencore].” Furthermore, the hearing officer

concluded, because Glencore settled the tax assessment dispute with the Division,

the settlement operated as a final judgment and precluded Apex from relitigating the

claim.

         Finally, the hearing officer also analyzed the doctrine of administrative

finality, notwithstanding the conclusion that Apex lacked standing to pursue a refund

of the claim. The hearing officer concluded that,

               “[a]s much as [Apex] wants to characterize this matter as
               its challenge to its tax assessment, [Apex] – as detailed in
               its facts – contractually paid the amount of tax to
               [Glencore, which] challenged its tax assessment and
               resolved its appeal. An administrative decision by way of
               settlement resolved the challenge to the tax assessment.
                                          - 34 -
             There is no change in material circumstances as [Apex] is
             challenging the tax assessment to [Glencore]. Thus, like
             claim preclusion, administrative finality precludes a
             challenge here because there has been a final resolution
             via administrative action on the challenge to the
             assessment.”

      After the Tax Administrator adopted the hearing officer’s decision and

dismissed the administrative appeal, Apex, individually and as assignee of Glencore,

filed a second complaint in district court seeking to overturn the final decision of the

Division. The district court consolidated the two matters pending in that court before

granting the motion to dismiss both complaints.

      In dismissing the consolidated cases, the trial judge noted that the parties

presented three issues: (1) whether Apex had standing; (2) whether Apex’s claims

were barred by res judicata; and (3) whether Apex’s refund claim was barred by the

statute of limitations. Ultimately the trial judge granted the Division’s motions to

dismiss based on res judicata. The trial judge clarified that he was holding that

Apex, suing in its own right, was barred by res judicata; the trial judge never reached

the issue of standing.

      This Court issued the writs of certiorari to consider whether the trial judge

committed an error of law. Although the trial judge did not address whether Apex

has standing, either individually or under the assignment from Glencore, I believe

that the operative pleadings reveal that Apex does not have standing in either case.

Specifically, Apex cannot bring its claim in its own right under G.L. 1956 § 31-36-
                                         - 35 -
13, nor can it demonstrate that its injury is causally connected to the Division’s

actions.

       This Court has stated that, when determining whether standing exists, we

“must focus on the party who is advancing the claim rather than on the issue the

party seeks to have adjudicated.” Dauray v. Mee, 109 A.3d 832, 840 (R.I. 2015)

(quoting N & M Properties, LLC v. Town of West Warwick, 964 A.2d 1141, 1145

(R.I. 2009)).    This case involves multiple energy commodities traders, their

sophisticated chain transaction, and the agreements that they entered into in pursuit

of their commodities trades; thus I believe it is necessary to bear in mind whether

Apex is advancing its claims individually or as an assignee of Glencore’s rights. See

Watson v. Fox, 44 A.3d 130, 135 (R.I. 2012) (“[A] court must determine if the

plaintiff whose standing is challenged is a proper party to request an adjudication of

a particular issue and not whether the issue itself is justiciable or, indeed, whether or

not it should be litigated.”) (quoting McKenna v. Williams, 874 A.2d 217, 226 (R.I.

2005)). After close examination of the operative pleadings and the extensive

documents incorporated therein, I am persuaded that the hearing officer correctly

evaluated Apex’s standing, both individually and as an assignee of Glencore’s

rights.2 I further believe that, because Apex lacks standing, both individually and

2
 In fact, despite the attention to these distinct theories at every stage of the litigation,
during oral argument, Apex seemed to concede that, once Glencore settled its
                                          - 36 -
pursuant to the assignment, to pursue its claim for a refund from the Division of

monies paid to Glencore under its contractual obligations, there is no need to address

the doctrines of res judicata and administrative finality.

      To have standing, the plaintiff must either be “the beneficiary of express

statutory authority” or have suffered an injury in fact. Tanner v. Town Council of

Town of East Greenwich, 880 A.2d 784, 792 (R.I. 2005). “In statutory standing

cases, such as this, the analysis consists of a straight statutory construction of the

relevant statute to determine upon whom the Legislature conferred standing and

whether the claimant in question falls in that category.” Id. at 792 n.6. This Court

interprets the statute, giving the unambiguous language its plain and ordinary

meaning and “adopting a construction of a statute” that effectuates the Legislature’s

intended purpose. Id. at 792-93. Apex sought a reimbursement under § 31-36-13.

Section 31-36-13 provides that:

             “Any person who shall purchase fuels upon which the tax
             provided in this chapter shall have been paid and shall sell
             the fuels outside this state or to the United States
             government, may be reimbursed the amount of the tax in
             the manner and subject to the conditions provided in this
             chapter. All claims for reimbursement shall be made under
             oath * * * and shall contain any information and proof that
             the tax administrator may require, that the claimant has
             paid the tax * * *.” (Emphasis added.)

administrative appeal of the tax assessment, Glencore no longer had a viable claim
that it could assign to Apex.
                                        - 37 -
Under the clear and unambiguous language of the statute, Apex does not have

statutory standing because it did not have a statutory obligation to pay the tax at issue

in this case. Moreover, aside from the petitions for writ of certiorari filed in this

matter, nowhere does Apex allege that it actually paid the tax, rather than merely

reimbursed Glencore, the actual taxpayer, pursuant to the parties’ agreement, for

taxes and fees that Glencore paid to the Division.

      To otherwise have standing, a plaintiff must satisfy three requirements: (1)

“[t]he plaintiff must have suffered an injury in fact—an invasion of a legally

protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized * * * and (b) actual or

imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Mruk v. Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc., 82 A.3d 527, 535 (R.I. 2013) (quoting Lujan v. Defenders

of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)). Additionally, a plaintiff must demonstrate

(2) “a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of—the

injury has to be fairly * * * trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and

not * * * th[e] result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the

court.” Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). Finally, a plaintiff must demonstrate

that it is (3) “likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be

redressed by a favorable decision.” Id. (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561).

      I concede that Apex has pled sufficient facts to satisfy the first requirement:

Apex has suffered a concrete injury in fact because the Division imposed a tax on

                                         - 38 -
Glencore related to the March 15, 2018 transaction, which ultimately resulted in

Apex paying more than $4 million to Glencore. See Mruk, 82 A.3d at 535; Watson,

44 A.3d at 135 (“To satisfy the standing requirement, a plaintiff must allege ‘that the

challenged action has caused him injury in fact, economic or otherwise.’”) (quoting

Rhode Island Ophthalmological Society v. Cannon, 113 R.I. 16, 22, 317 A.2d 124,

128 (1974)). However, the standing analysis compels rigorous evaluation of all three

requirements. After evaluating causal connection and redressability, I do not believe

that Apex has demonstrated, through its extensive pleadings, that it can meet those

two requirements. Thus, although the $4 million that Apex paid to Glencore is fairly

traceable to the Division’s tax assessment on the March 15, 2018 transaction, that is

not the end of the analysis. I believe that the economic injury suffered by Apex,

though fairly traceable to the Division’s assessment on Glencore, has a tenuous

connection to the Division’s action and ultimately is the result of independent actions

by one or more third parties not before the court.

      The causation element “requires the plaintiff to show a sufficiently direct

causal connection between the challenged action and the identified harm.” Katz v.

Pershing, LLC, 672 F.3d 64, 71 (1st Cir. 2012) (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). I do

not believe that Apex has demonstrated a sufficiently direct link between the

assessment levied on the March 15, 2018 transaction and Apex’s economic injury.

Although the Division denied a distributor license to Apex and assessed the tax

                                        - 39 -
against Glencore, these were not the only actions that led to Apex’s injury. The

chain transaction involved multiple entities: prior to the March 15, 2018 transaction,

BP purchased the 300,000 barrels of gasoline from Apex and subsequently resold

the gasoline to ExxonMobil, which directed delivery to occur in East Providence and

resulted in taxation by the Division. Additionally, as the majority also notes,

Glencore voluntarily paid the tax to the Division and challenged only the interest

and penalties.    Thus, Apex’s economic injury is ultimately the result of the

independent action of a third party, Glencore.3 See Dantzler, Inc. v. Empresas

Berrios Inventory and Operations, Inc., 958 F.3d 38, 48 (1st Cir. 2020) (concluding

that the plaintiff Dantzler lacked standing because it could not prove that the

defendant’s actions were the direct cause of the injury because the injury “depended

on the actions of the ocean freight carriers, the entities that were required to pay the

[enhanced security fees (ESFs)] to [Puerto Rico Ports Authority (PRPA)] [and]

Dantzler did not directly pay the ESFs to PRPA, nor did PRPA assess the ESFs on

Dantzler; rather, Dantzler alleges, without elaboration, that the ocean freight carriers

collected ESFs from their customers -- i.e., the shipper entities like Dantzler”). The

Division’s failure to issue a distributor license to Apex is of minimal relevance to

the causation analysis: it was Glencore’s decision to pay the assessment and

3
  It is worth noting, once again, that after Glencore settled its administrative appeal
of the tax assessment and assigned its remaining interest, it no longer had a viable
claim to assign to Apex.
                                         - 40 -
thereafter to settle its administrative appeal that broke the causal chain between the

Division’s conduct and the economic injury identified by Apex. It is also noteworthy

that Apex, a sophisticated commodities trader, negotiated an agreement with

Glencore that, for whatever reason, made Apex responsible for any tax assessed, and

further that Apex reimbursed Glencore pursuant to that agreement.

      My view of the causal nexus required to link a taxpayer to the taxing authority

is also informed by persuasive decisions of various federal courts in comparable

cases. For example, in Ammex, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 303 (2002), a

decision that was thereafter affirmed by the Federal Circuit, the Federal Claims

Court considered whether the defendant had standing to seek a refund for gasoline

and diesel fuel purchases under relevant federal law. Ammex, Inc., 52 Fed. Cl. at 308,

aff’d 384 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). That court noted that “[i]t has been well

established that in order to maintain an action for the refund of federal taxes under

the Internal Revenue Code, the plaintiff must be a taxpayer who has overpaid its own

taxes.” Id. at 309. That court has also strictly interpreted “taxpayer” as being limited

to an “entity who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay its own taxes.” Id.; Economy

Plumbing & Heating Co. Inc. v. United States, 470 F.2d 585, 589 (Ct. Cl. 1972)

(“[P]ersons who are not taxpayers are not within the system and can obtain no

benefit by following the procedures prescribed for taxpayers, such as the filing of

claims for refunds.”); Collins v. United States, 532 F.2d 1344, 1348 (Ct. Cl. 1976)

                                         - 41 -
(“In cases involving the payment of tax liabilities by a third party, it is fundamental

that the plaintiff cannot recover if the payment in issue was voluntary and the

plaintiff bears the burden of proving some element which would remove him from

the category of volunteer.”).

      Finally, with respect to the redressability requirement, I am unconvinced that

a favorable decision in this case would result in Apex achieving the relief it seeks.

Specifically, Apex asks the court to compel the Division to reimburse Apex the more

than $4 million that Apex paid to Glencore for the tax. This is because the Division

did not assess taxes against Apex, but instead assessed taxes against an independent

third party, Glencore.

      I acknowledge that Apex, a sophisticated commodities trader, alleges serious

constitutional violations regarding the Division’s taxation of the purchase and sale

of energy commodities in international waters. However, the mere allegation of a

constitutional violation has never been the key factor that drives a conclusion that a

plaintiff’s claims are justiciable; this Court’s standing doctrine requires that we have

“a proper party [requesting] an adjudication of a particular issue * * *.” Key v.

Brown University, 163 A.3d 1162, 1169 (R.I. 2017) (quoting Watson, 44 A.3d at

135). My examination of the certified record submitted to this Court pursuant to the

writs issued in these consolidated cases compels me to conclude that Apex cannot

demonstrate that it is the proper party to request adjudication of this important issue.

                                         - 42 -
Accordingly, I would dismiss the petitions and remand the papers to the district court

with instructions to enter final judgment in favor of the Division.

                                        - 43 -
                                              STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
                                         SUPREME COURT – CLERK’S OFFICE
                                               Licht Judicial Complex
                                                 250 Benefit Street
                                               Providence, RI 02903

                                     OPINION COVER SHEET

                                         Apex Oil Company, Inc., individually and as Assignee
Title of Case                            of Glencore, Ltd. v. State of Rhode Island, acting by
                                         and through Division of Taxation.
                                         No. 2021-116-M.P. (A.A. 20-72)
Case Number
                                         No. 2021-117-M.P. (6CA 19-7653)

Date Opinion Filed                       July 24, 2023

                                         Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Robinson, Lynch Prata, and
Justices
                                         Long, JJ.

Written By                               Associate Justice Maureen McKenna Goldberg

Source of Appeal                         6th Division District Court

Judicial Officer from Lower Court        Associate Judge Christopher Smith

                                         For Plaintiff:

                                         Ryan M. Gainor, Esq.
Attorney(s) on Appeal
                                         For Defendant:

                                         Bethany M. Whitmarsh, Esq.

SU-CMS-02A (revised November 2022)