Court Opinion

ID: 9585952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:05:29.823264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:17.524943
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Justice,
dissenting:
I must respectfully dissent. The fundamental structure of the MAPS refund provision is flawed because it is not based on a tax exemption or tax credit. I have not found any authority which supports a tax refund standing alone, and the majority cites none. Every statutory scheme for a refund of this nature is founded on an explicit exemption from payment of the tax.
As the majority points out, the legislature has created certain classes of taxpayers who are entitled by statute to receive a refund of sales tax paid based on statutory exemptions, but the majority does not perceive the significance of this difference. Title 68 O.S.1991 §§ 1357.2-1357.5 provide for sales tax refunds for specified sales relating to qualified aircraft maintenance or repair facilities and tourism facilities and also for certain sales of computers and data processing equipment. Those refunds, however, are based on the statutory exemption provided by 68 O.S.1991 § 1357 and were implemented by the legislature “in order to administer the exemption for [those] sales”. Sections 1357.2-1357.5. In the ordinance before us there is no exemption which is administered or effectuated by the refund.
It is fundamental that property is never exempt from taxation except by specific and definite provisions of the law and that the legislature cannot grant an exemption from taxation except as provided by the constitution. Wenner v. Mothersead, 129 Okl. 273, 264 P. 816 (1928); Independent School Dist. No. 9 v. Glass, 639 P.2d 1233 (Okl.1982). Also, exemptions are never implied; statutes exempting property from taxation are to be strictly construed against granting exemptions. Autumn House v. State, ex rel., Tax Commission, 814 P.2d 1036 (Okl.1991); McDonald’s Corp. v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 563 P.2d 635 (Okl.1977).
The absence of an underlying exemption is not a mere technicality; it violates basic tenets of taxation law. I am concerned about the Court’s approval of this unprecedented refund provision without consideration of these underlying issues.
I am authorized to state that Chief Justice WILSON joins with me in the views expressed herein.