Court Opinion

ID: 9681165
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:44:41.134331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:32.343959
License: Public Domain

BLACKMAR, Chief Judge,
dissenting.
The record demonstrates that the director of revenue, during the period covered by the petition for review, collected sales and use tax from magazines but not from newspapers. It is patent that this practice, if authorized by the governing statutes, would discriminate between different kinds of print media by reason of their content, and so would violate the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575, 103 S.Ct. 1365, 75 L.Ed.2d 295 (1983); Arkansas Writers’ Project, Inc. v. Ragland, 481 U.S. 221, 107 S.Ct. 1722, 95 L.Ed.2d 209 (1987); Dow Jones & Co. v. Oklahoma (Okl., No. 70663, July 6, 1989); Louisiana Life, Ltd. v. McNamara, 504 So.2d 900 (La.App.1987); McGraw-Hill, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 541 N.Y.S.2d 252 (App.Div.1989).
The principal opinion notes the discrimination, but holds that the governing statutes are not discriminatory, and goes on to hold that the exemption of newspapers by regulation is invalid. It therefore denies the appellant the refund it seeks, on the apparent assumption that the revenue authorities will now collect sales and use tax on the sale of newspapers. If this is done, there will be no discrimination in the future.
It is evident, however, that there has been discrimination in the past. I believe that there should be relief against discrimination which has its origin in administrative action, as well as against legislative discrimination, when first amendment considerations are involved. It is possible, furthermore, that the newspapers, who are not parties to the action before us, will not accept the assessment of a deficiency without litigating. It is probable, also, that deficiencies cannot be assessed for the entire period covered by the claims for refund.
*560So I would vacate the decision appealed from and would remand the case to the Administrative Hearing Commission with directions to allow the claim for refund to the extent that the discrimination cannot be corrected by assessment of deficiencies against the media which received favored treatment.