Court Opinion

ID: 9611195
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:53:08.646331+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:18.153045
License: Public Domain

CARLEY, Justice,
dissenting.
In these cases, we granted certiorari to determine whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the relitigation of a tax issue where there has been no significant factual change, but where there has been a change or development in the law. In Division 1, the majority opinion correctly holds that collateral estoppel does not apply under those circumstances. In Division 2, however, the majority affirms the Court of Appeals, concluding that there was no such intervening change in the law regarding the eligibility of the inventory of General Electric Capital Computer Services (GECC) for the freeport exemption. Because I believe that there clearly was a significant legal development mandating the denial of the tax exemption, I dissent to the affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
“[T]he taxes for each year constitute a separate cause of action.” Georgia R. and Banking Co. v. Wright, 124 Ga. 596, 597 (2) (53 SE 251) (1906), reversed on other grounds, 207 U. S. 127 (28 SC 47, 52 LE 134) (1907). GECC first raised the issue when it filed suit seeking the freeport exemption for the 1993 tax year. In connection with that litigation, the trial court entered an order holding that the inventory was eligible for the exemption. This order was affirmed without opinion by the Court of Appeals. Gwinnett County Bd. of Tax Assessors v. G. E. Capital Computer Services, 216 Ga. App. XXVIII (1995). That decision has no precedential value for cases involving other parties. Court of Appeals Rule 36. However, “so long as the issue was determined in the previous action and there is identity of the parties, that issue may not be re-litigated, even as part of a different claim.” Wal*181droup v. Greene County Hosp. Auth., 265 Ga. 864, 867 (2) (463 SE2d 5) (1995). Thus, as between GECC and Gwinnett County, the trial court’s 1994 order, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, would constitute collateral estoppel in subsequent tax years unless there was an intervening change in the law. Jackson v. City of College Park, 230 Ga. App. 487, 490 (1) (496 SE2d 777) (1998).
In the context of another taxpayer’s suit, the Court of Appeals subsequently issued an opinion holding that an inventory such as that held by GECC would not qualify for the freeport exemption.
[W]e find that under our law these computers are in the nature of. . . stock-in-trade which [the taxpayer] is holding merely for shipment to its retail customers who use the Galileo computer system, and not for shipment for “resale purposes.” OCGA § 48-5-48.2 (a) (4).
Apollo Travel Services v. Gwinnett County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 230 Ga. App. 790, 793 (4) (498 SE2d 297) (1998). Under Apollo Travel, GECC is not entitled to receive a freeport exemption on its inventory. Even though the holding in Apollo Travel as to the taxability of inventory of the type held by GECC was diametrically opposed to the 1994 order, the majority inexplicably concludes that Apollo Travel was not “a major change or a modification of such significance so as to render prior determinations under the exemption erroneous or obsolete.” However, a judicial decision holding that what had been permitted was no longer authorized has always been considered a significant legal change or development. See Etkind v. Suarez, 271 Ga. 352, 356 (5) (519 SE2d 210) (1999) (discussing the importance of stare decisis). Apollo Travel did not expressly overrule G. E. Capital Computer Services, supra. However, “a decision may be overruled directly or impliedly, as by a refusal to apply it in subsequent cases ...” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Astro Leasing, 194 Ga. App. 515, 517 (390 SE2d 885) (1990). Thus, the inconsistency between Apollo Travel and that previous opinion is the controlling factor.
The determinative question is simply whether, after the decision in Apollo Travel, the 1994 order can continue to collaterally estop Gwinnett County from recovering a tax on GECC’s non-exempt inventory for subsequent tax years.
In cases involving taxes in different taxable years, the principle of collateral estoppel must be confined to situations where the matter raised in the second suit is identical in all respects with that decided in the first proceeding and where the controlling facts and applicable legal rules remain unchanged. . . . Collateral estoppel will not bar the litiga*182tion of a tax issue litigated in a prior year where there has been a change or development in the controlling legal principles. The principle of collateral estoppel as applied to tax cases may not be used to vest a right in a rule of law that has become obsolete.
Decided November 13, 2000
Reconsideration denied November 30, 2000.
Carothers & Mitchell, Richard A. Carothers, Thomas M. Mitchell, for appellant.
Ragsdale, Beals, Hooper & Seigler, David K. Beals, Lisa F. Stuckey, Karen G. Thomas, for appellee.
50 CJS, Judgment, § 913 (b), p. 501. Obviously, the reported opinion in Apollo Travel controls over the Rule 36 affirmance of the 1994 order holding that GECC was entitled to that exemption.
Thus, the decision of the Court of Appeals in these cases is erroneous, as it misconstrues and misapplies the principle of collateral estoppel. Under that holding, collateral estoppel, as recognized in Georgia, means that a prior decision issued in a case between two parties will control in a later action between them on a similar, but entirely different claim, notwithstanding any changes in the law as a result of a judicial decision rendered subsequently. It is true that a previous decision, although erroneous, controls over a subsequent one in the context of the “law of the case” rule. See Redmond v. Blau, 153 Ga. App. 395 (265 SE2d 329) (1980). However, the law of the case principle does not apply here, because the litigation involving the 1993 tax year is an entirely distinct case from this proceeding involving GECC’s tax liability for subsequent tax years. By erroneously equating collateral estoppel with the law of the case, the opinion of the Court of Appeals has great potential for causing confusion in the application of these two completely different legal concepts. I believe that it is extremely important that we maintain the clear distinction which has always existed between collateral estoppel and the law of the case. Unfortunately, this Court now compounds the error committed by the Court of Appeals’ reversal of the trial court’s correct rulings in this case.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice Benham and Presiding Justice Fletcher join in this dissent.