Court Opinion

ID: 9407623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-07 18:00:53.229303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:39.270089
License: Public Domain

Case: 22-30373        Document: 00516812740             Page: 1      Date Filed: 07/07/2023

             United States Court of Appeals
                  for the Fifth Circuit                                          United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                          Fifth Circuit

                                     ____________                                       FILED
                                                                                      July 7, 2023
                                       No. 22-30373                                  Lyle W. Cayce
                                     ____________                                         Clerk

   Halstead Bead, Incorporated,

                                                                    Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                            versus

   Kevin Richards, in his official capacity as Louisiana Secretary of
   Revenue; Amanda Granier, in her official capacity as Sales Tax Collector,
   Lafourche Parish, Louisiana; Donna Drude, in her official capacity as
   Sales and Use Tax Administrator of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana; Jamie
   Butts, in her official capacity as Sales Tax Auditor, Washington Parish,
   Louisiana; Lafourche Parish Government, incorrectly referred to
   as Lafourche Parish; Tangipahoa Parish, a Home Rule Chartered
   Parish; Washington Parish, a Home Rule Chartered Parish,

                                              Defendants—Appellees.
                     ______________________________

                     Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                              USDC No. 2:21-CV-2106
                     ______________________________

   Before Higginbotham, Southwick, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *

         _____________________
         *
             This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-30373      Document: 00516812740           Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                     No. 22-30373

          Halstead Bead, Inc. is an Arizona company that sells products online
   throughout the country. It argues that Louisiana’s parish-by-parish sales- and
   use-tax system is so costly to navigate that it runs afoul of the Dormant
   Commerce Clause doctrine and Due Process. The company sought
   declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of the tax system,
   as well as nominal damages against various state and local governmental
   defendants. The district court dismissed the matter for lack of jurisdiction,
   reasoning that the Tax Injunction Act (“TIA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1341, barred it
   from hearing Halstead’s claims. In the alternative, the district court refrained
   from exercising jurisdiction on grounds of comity. We AFFIRM on the first
   ground and do not reach the second.
          The TIA is clear: “The district courts shall not enjoin, suspend or
   restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law where a
   plain, speedy and efficient remedy may be had in the courts of such State.”
   28 U.S.C. § 1341. “State taxation, for § 1341 purposes, includes local
   taxation.” Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 100 n.1 (2004). The TIA applies to
   declaratory relief, California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U.S. 393, 411
   (1982), and to nominal damages, A Bonding Co. v. Sunnuck, 629 F.2d 1127,
   1134 (5th Cir. 1980).
          The TIA bars federal jurisdiction over Halstead’s lawsuit. The first
   “question before us is whether the relief sought here would ‘enjoin, suspend
   or restrain the assessment, levy or collection of any tax under State law.’”
   Direct Mktg. Ass’n v. Brohl, 575 U.S. 1, 7 (2015) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1341).
   It would. Halstead’s requested relief, if granted, would stop the collection of
   Louisiana sales and use taxes from remote sellers such as Halstead. We thus
   turn to the second part of the analysis, which is whether Halstead has “a
   plain, speedy and efficient remedy . . . in the courts of [the] State.” 28 U.S.C.
   § 1341. It does. First, Louisiana law permits a declaratory-judgment action in
   state court for these types of claims. See La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. arts.

                                          2
Case: 22-30373      Document: 00516812740            Page: 3   Date Filed: 07/07/2023

                                      No. 22-30373

   1871 & 1872. Second, the state Board of Tax Appeals can hear Halstead’s
   challenge to the constitutionality of the state’s tax laws. La. Rev. Stat.
   §§ 47:1407(3)(a), (7); 47:1431(D)(1). Judicial review of BTA decisions is
   available. La. Rev. Stat. § 47:1434(A).
          Halstead asserts that it lacks an adequate state forum because state
   tribunals will hear only claims for refunds, which Halstead cannot do because
   it has not paid any Louisiana sales or use taxes. But Halstead is simply wrong.
   As explained, Louisiana law permits challenges to Louisiana tax laws to be
   heard in the BTA and in state court, and Halstead has failed to explain why
   it would be subject to any payment-under-protest requirement. Nor has
   Halstead persuasively explained why the refund process is inadequate even if
   it were applicable. See Stephens v. Portal Boat Co., 781 F.2d 481, 483 n.3 (5th
   Cir. 1986) (“‘The Supreme Court specifically declared the Louisiana refund
   procedure adequate in Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Company v. Huffman, [319
   U.S. 293, 301 (1943)].’” (quoting United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Whitman, 595
   F.2d 323, 331 (5th Cir. 1979))).
          AFFIRMED.

                                           3