IN THE MATTER OF THE ASSESSMENTS FOR TAX YEAR 2012 OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES
481 P.3d 883
| Okla. | 2021Background
- Clifton Throneberry and E.W. Crowe (trustees) appealed county ad valorem assessments for tax years including 2012 after the Tulsa County Board of Equalization denied relief; the District Court found one parcel exempt and another partially exempt and ordered refunds "with interest as allowed by law."
- The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed; mandate issued January 16, 2019. Taxpayers then moved in District Court for postjudgment interest under the general postjudgment statute, 12 O.S. § 727.1.
- Tulsa County Assessor responded that protested payments had been held/invested and that any interest on refunds must be computed and paid under the ad valorem statute, 68 O.S. § 2884; the assessor had sent claim forms refunding taxes "along with accrued interest."
- The District Court granted taxpayers’ motion and awarded interest under 12 O.S. § 727.1; the assessor appealed and the Oklahoma Supreme Court retained the appeal.
- The Supreme Court held that the ad valorem-specific statute § 2884 governs payment of interest on protested tax refunds and disapproved application of State ex rel. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Sanders to the extent it authorized using a general postjudgment interest statute where a specific ad valorem scheme applies. The District Court judgment was reversed and the case remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether taxpayers may recover postjudgment interest under the general postjudgment statute (12 O.S. § 727.1) on an ad valorem tax refund | § 727.1 authorizes postjudgment interest on judgments against political subdivisions and thus applies to the refund judgment | The ad valorem statute § 2884 is the specific remedial scheme for protested taxes and controls interest on refunds | Held for defendant: § 2884 controls; § 727.1 does not apply where § 2884 provides the interest procedure |
| Whether the term "accrued interest" in 68 O.S. § 2884 is ambiguous (i.e., prejudgment vs. postjudgment) | Taxpayers: "accrued interest" should be read as prejudgment interest and § 727.1 may separately provide postjudgment interest | Assessor: § 2884 was intended to cover interest for the entire period protested funds are held and is not ambiguous; it establishes exclusive procedure | Held for defendant: § 2884 is clear; "accrued interest" was designed to compensate during the entire litigation and is not ambiguous |
| Whether Sanders authorizes applying a general postjudgment interest statute to ad valorem refund proceedings governed by a specific statute | Taxpayers relied on Sanders to argue a general postjudgment interest statute controls where interest is not otherwise spelled out | Assessor argued Sanders applied where the refund statute was silent, but here § 2884 expressly provides the investment-and-interest scheme | Held: Sanders is disapproved to the extent it permits using a general postjudgment interest statute when a specific ad valorem statute (§ 2884) provides for investment of protested funds and payment of accrued interest |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Oklahoma Employment Security Commission v. Sanders, 304 P.2d 287 (Okla. 1956) (earlier Oklahoma decision applying a general postjudgment interest statute to refund contexts where the refund statute was silent)
- Bison Nitrogen Prod. Co. v. Lucas, 738 P.2d 147 (Okla. 1987) (affirmed that postjudgment interest applied where ad valorem statute then in effect was silent on interest)
- Bd. of Educ., Woodward Pub. Schools v. Hensley, 665 P.2d 327 (Okla. Civ. App. 1983) (county treasurer investment of protested taxes results in interest becoming part of the fund apportioned on resolution)
- Eaton v. St. Louis & S. F. Ry. Co., 251 P. 1032 (Okla. 1925) (early precedent disallowing interest on tax refunds when statutory remedy did not provide for it)
- State ex rel. Comm'rs of Land Office v. Warden, 242 P.2d 129 (Okla. 1951) (recognized application of a general judgment-interest statute to judgments against the state prior to ad valorem statutes addressing interest)
- Board of Comm'rs of Jackson County v. United States, 308 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1939) (federal precedent discussing equitable awarding of interest in intergovernmental tax refund disputes)