Anheuser-Busch, L.L.C. v. Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector
2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 11060
| Tex. App. | 2016Background
- Anheuser-Busch owned seven Harris County properties for tax year 2012; Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector (HCTAC) mailed tax bills in November 2012 but never mailed any of the seven bills to both the owner and the owner’s authorized agent (Duff & Phelps) — five bills went only to the agent and two only to Anheuser-Busch (parties agree none were mailed to both).
- Anheuser-Busch attempted to pay taxes before the February 1 default delinquency date by mailing a check on January 23, 2013; the check was dishonored by the bank and HCTAC assessed $631,114.08 in penalties and interest.
- Anheuser-Busch later paid the penalties and interest “under protest and duress,” then filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that penalties and interest were not owed because the delinquency date had been postponed by failure to mail required duplicate bills.
- Trial court granted summary judgment to HCTAC; Anheuser-Busch appealed.
- The court of appeals considered sovereign immunity (duress exception), statutory construction of Tex. Tax Code §31.01(a) (mail to both owner and authorized agent) and §31.04 (postponement when bill mailed after Jan 10), substantial compliance, waiver, and the voluntary payment rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction / sovereign immunity | Anheuser-Busch alleged it paid penalties under duress and seeks declaratory relief; thus immunity is waived for refund claims | HCTAC argued sovereign immunity bars suit for money damages | Held: Jurisdiction exists — alleging payment under duress suffices to avoid sovereign immunity for declaratory relief about illegally collected taxes |
| Construction of §31.01(a) (mail to owner and authorized agent) and effect on delinquency date (§31.04) | Failure to mail required tax bills to both owner and authorized agent postpones default Feb. 1 delinquency date; payment on Feb. 21 was timely | HCTAC argued mailing to either owner or agent substantially complies and does not postpone delinquency | Held: §31.01(a) requires mailing to both (conjunctive “and”); if mailing to both is not completed by Jan.10 and assessor had the addresses, §31.04 postpones the delinquency date and precludes penalties as of Feb.1 |
| Substantial compliance defense | N/A (Anheuser-Busch argued strict compliance required) | HCTAC argued substantial compliance (mailing to either owner or agent) should suffice | Held: Rejected — statute and §31.04’s consequences leave no room for substantial-compliance exception to avoid postponement |
| Waiver and voluntary payment rule | Anheuser-Busch contended it tried to pay before Feb.1 and later paid penalties under protest/duress and expressly reserved rights | HCTAC argued Anheuser-Busch waived objections by attempting payment and forms implied waiver; also asserted voluntary payment rule bars recovery | Held: No waiver — tender before Feb.1 showed intent to preserve rights; appointment form did not show knowing relinquishment. Voluntary payment rule inapplicable to protested/duress payments of penalties and interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Tex. Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n v. IT–Davy, 74 S.W.3d 849 (Tex. 2002) (sovereign immunity protects the State from suits for money damages)
- Dallas Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. v. Bolton, 185 S.W.3d 868 (Tex. 2005) (voluntary payment rule and interest in tax-collection context)
- Miga v. Jensen, 96 S.W.3d 207 (Tex. 2002) (threat of statutory penalties and accruing interest can constitute economic duress)
- Nivens v. City of League City, 245 S.W.3d 470 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007) (payment under duress, fraud, or mistake can avoid sovereign immunity for refund actions)
- Aldine Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Ogg, 122 S.W.3d 257 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003) (interpretation that §31.04 applies when taxing unit has name/address but mails bill late)
- City of Houston v. Feizer, 13 S.W. 266 (Tex. 1890) (historical statement of the voluntary payment rule)