435 P.3d 90
Okla.2018Background
- CompSource and Oklahoma Association of Electric Self Insurers sought rebates under 68 O.S. § 6101 for 2015 Multiple Injury Trust Fund (MITF) assessments; Tax Commission denied them and stopped processing rebates after a 2015 statutory amendment and the Governor’s Executive Order.
- § 6101 (2002) authorized a rebate equal to two‑thirds of assessments paid "pursuant to Section 173 of Title 85," and § 6102 created a fund to pay rebates from income tax collections.
- Section 173 (and successor provisions § 403 and 85A § 31) originally prohibited passing two‑thirds of the assessment to policyholders; the 2015 amendment to 85A § 31 removed that billing restriction.
- The Tax Commission and Governor treated the 2015 amendment as implicitly repealing § 6101 and issued an executive order directing the Commission to stop rebates.
- The trial administrative judge granted rebates; the Tax Commission denied them; the Supreme Court reversed the Commission and remanded for processing rebates but denied plaintiffs’ claim to interest and found no substantive due process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nature of § 6101's reference to § 173 (specific or general) | § 6101 creates an independent rebate tied to § 173 as a fixed incorporation entitling rebates | Reference is to the then‑current assessment procedure (a general reference), so subsequent changes control | Court: reference is general (procedural); § 6101 looks to the operative assessment statute as amended over time |
| Whether 2015 amendment to 85A § 31 impliedly repealed § 6101 | § 6101 was not expressly repealed and remains effective; rebate survives the § 31 amendment | The amendment removed billing restriction and thus implicitly repealed § 6101 (no longer a basis for rebate) | Court: repeal by implication disfavored; no irreconcilable conflict; § 6101 was not repealed by implication |
| Validity/effect of Governor’s Executive Order directing Commission to stop rebates | Executive order cannot override statute; plaintiffs kept vested refund interest | Gov/Tax Commission relied on EO and legislative intent to stop rebates | Court: Governor could issue EO but EO’s legal conclusion (that § 6101 was repealed) was incorrect; EO does not supplant statutory law |
| Due process / taking claims | Plaintiffs: denial of rebates (and continued refusal) deprived them of vested property right; some claimed a taking | Tax Commission: acted under its statutory interpretation and EO; remedies and administrative process remain | Court: no substantive due process or taking shown on appellate record; administrative protest remedies available; plaintiffs win on statutory construction but not interest |
| Entitlement to interest on rebates | Plaintiffs sought postjudgment interest under 68 O.S. § 225(E) | Tax Commission: § 6102 is specific and controls; rebate fund and funding rules preclude § 225 interest | Court: deny interest; specific statute (§ 6102 and rebate funding) controls over general refund/interest statute |
Key Cases Cited
- National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (U.S. 2007) (repeals by implication are not favored; later statute must expressly contradict earlier one to repeal it).
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (U.S. 1957) (renumbering/recodification without substantive change does not alter statutory meaning).
- El Encanto, Inc. v. Hatch Chile Co., 825 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2016) (discussion of specific vs. general statutory reference).
- Director, Office of Workers' Comp. Programs v. Peabody Coal Co., 554 F.2d 310 (7th Cir. 1977) (treatment of incorporation‑by‑reference issues).
- Fent v. Henry, 257 P.3d 984 (Okla. 2011) (Oklahoma precedent on repeal by implication and statutory construction).