J.G. Myers and C.A. Reihl v. Com. of PA
128 A.3d 846
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Petitioners Myers and Reihl (Taxpayers), BJ’s members, alleged BJ’s charged Pennsylvania sales tax on the pre‑coupon price of purchases and sought refunds and class relief against BJ’s in common pleas court.
- BJ’s objected that Taxpayers had not exhausted administrative remedies with the Department of Revenue; Taxpayers then filed a petition for refund and later requested Department letter rulings.
- The Department’s Office of Chief Counsel issued letter rulings concluding the receipts did not sufficiently tie coupons to specific items, so the taxable purchase price was not reduced.
- Taxpayers sought reconsideration; the Department reconfirmed its ruling. They then asked the Board of Finance and Revenue to review the letter rulings; the Board’s Acting Secretary replied the Board lacked authority to reverse departmental letter rulings.
- Taxpayers petitioned this Court for review. The Commonwealth moved for summary relief asserting advisory opinions/letter rulings are not appealable to the Board and therefore the petition should be dismissed.
- The Court granted the Commonwealth’s application for summary relief and dismissed the petition with prejudice, holding advisory letter rulings are not appealable to the Board and no material facts were in dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a Department letter ruling (advisory opinion) is appealable to the Board of Finance and Revenue | Letter rulings are reviewable; regulatory language (61 Pa. Code §701.2) and Stoloff suggest administrative/judicial review routes | Statutes and Code provide appeal routes only for assessments and refund decisions, not advisory opinions; Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights contains no appeal right | Advisory opinions/letter rulings are not appealable to the Board; petition dismissed |
| Whether Taxpayers failed to exhaust administrative remedies before suing BJ’s | Taxpayers sought to appeal the letter rulings instead of filing a refund petition | Department and Commonwealth: proper remedy for tax refund is a petition for refund/assessment process; advisory opinion does not substitute | Court agrees exhaustion rules apply; advisory opinion does not replace refund petition process |
| Whether the Board has statutory authority to reverse Department advisory opinions | Regulation phrasing implies Board review authority | Statutory scheme (Code provisions on reassessments and refund appeals) confines Board review to appeals from departmental orders, not advisory opinions | Board lacks authority to review advisory opinions; Secretary correctly declined review |
| Whether Stoloff v. Neiman Marcus supports appeal of advisory opinions | Stoloff allows common pleas actions where Department cannot provide requested relief and suggests referral to Department; Taxpayers argue it supports their stance | Commonwealth: Stoloff does not authorize appeal of advisory opinions to the Board; it emphasized refund petitions belong to Department | Court finds Stoloff distinguishable and not supportive of allowing Board review of advisory opinions |
Key Cases Cited
- McGarry v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 819 A.2d 1211 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (summary relief evaluated under summary judgment standards)
- Gartner v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 469 A.2d 697 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (procedural standard for preliminary disposition)
- Stoloff v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 24 A.3d 366 (Pa. Super. 2011) (distinguished; does not permit appeal of Department advisory opinions to the Board)