Huber v. COLORADO MINING ASS'N
264 P.3d 884
| Colo. | 2011Background
- Colorado coal severance tax statute (1988) sets base rate 36¢/ton plus a quarterly 1% adjustment for changes in the Producer Price Index (PPI).
- Amendment 1 (1992) requires voter approval for new taxes, tax rate increases, or policies causing net tax revenue gain.
- Department suspended applying the adjustment mechanism after Amendment 1; 2006 audit and AG opinion concluded adjustments are non-discretionary and pre-Amendment 1 in nature.
- Department rulemaking in 2007 implemented § 39-29-106 as written, calculating a rate of $0.76/ton vs $0.54/ton previously.
- Colorado Mining Association challenged the $0.76/ton tax amount, arguing voter approval was required for any upward adjustment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Department; Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling; Colorado Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §39-29-106(1),(5) set a tax rate that triggers TABOR voter approval? | Colorado Mining argues any upward adjustment requires vote. | Department argues it's a non-discretionary ministerial adjustment under pre-Amendment 1 statute. | Adjustments are non-discretionary, not tax rate increases; no voter approval required. |
| Is Amendment 1 prospective and thus not applicable to pre-existing tax statutes? | TABOR applies to future actions; pre-existing formula may be affected. | Amendment 1 applies prospectively; pre-existing statute may operate without voter approval. | Amendment 1 is prospective; pre-existing statute's adjustment mechanism does not violate it. |
| Does the Department have authority to implement the coal severance tax formula via regulation without altering the statute? | Regulation alters or expands beyond the statute. | Regulation faithfully implements the statute’s mandatory formula. | Regulations implementing §39-29-106 are valid ministerial actions consistent with the statute. |
| Did the Department’s 2007 rulemaking and 2008 onward implementation unlawfully increase revenue without voter approval? | Any increase above the 1992 rate requires voter approval. | Increases flow from statutory formula, not from new taxation; no TABOR conflict. | No TABOR conflict; implementation is constitutional under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barber v. Ritter, 196 P.3d 238 (Colo. 2008) (amendment limits on taxation; purpose of voter approval)
- Bickel v. City of Boulder, 885 P.2d 215 (Colo. 1994) (TABOR as limitation on legislative taxing power)
- Bolt v. Arapahoe County School Dist. No. Six, 898 P.2d 525 (Colo. 1995) (pre-Amendment 1 implementation as ministerial; timing matters)
- In re Interrogatories on Senate Bill 93-74, 852 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1993) (prospective application of Amendment 1)
- Havens v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 924 P.2d 517 (Colo. 1996) (TABOR spending limits; prospective/voter-approval framework)
- Cohen v. State Dep't of Revenue, 197 Colo. 385 (Colo. 1979) (regulations cannot modify statutory will; ministerial duties)
- Esser v. Dept. of Labor & Emp't, 30 P.3d 189 (Colo. 2001) (statutory construction generally favors legislature)
- Miller Int'l, Inc. v. State Dep't of Revenue, 646 P.2d 341 (Colo. 1982) (statutory interpretation; agency regulation alignment with statute)
- Parsons v. People, 32 Colo. 221 (Colo. 1904) (historical perspective on taxing powers)