Court Opinion

ID: 9694889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:59:39.214804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:06.666205
License: Public Domain

On Application for Rehearing
PER CURIAM.
In an application for a rehearing, counsel for appellant complains that we have misconstrued the nature of the $9469.03 assessment, treating it as a tax, when, in fact, it is a penalty. While it is true that we did refer to the assessment as a tax, whereas R.S. 47:304 designates it to he a penalty, the error is inconsequential as we are still of the opinion that the State is not estopped from insisting that appellant comply with the law. State v. J. Watts Kearny & Sons, 181 La. 554, 160 So. 77. See also 31 C.J.S. “Estoppel” § 147, p. 434.
Appellants also complain of the infliction of the additional penalty and interest under R.S. 47:1601 and 1602. Although penalties must be strictly construed, R.S. 47:1602 clearly provides for the assessment of the additional penalty to be added to the tax (penalty) when the “taxpayer” fails to make the return required by the provisions of the Subtitle.
A “taxpayer”, as defined by R.S. 47:2 “means any person liable to pay a tax or file a return under any provision in which the word ‘taxpayer’ appears * * ”. Hence, since appellant was required by R.S. 47:306 to file a return and remit the sales taxes it should have collected, it became liable for the additional penalties and interest applicable thereto.
The application for a rehearing is denied.
HAMITER, J., is of the opinion that a rehearing should be granted.