McLane Southern, Inc. v. Bridges
2012 La. LEXIS 101
| La. | 2012Background
- McLane Southern, Inc. is a Mississippi wholesale dealer that imports smokeless tobacco into Louisiana for sale to retailers.
- Louisiana imposes a 20% excise tax on smokeless tobacco via La. R.S. 47:841, and 47:854 directs collection from the dealer who first distributes in Louisiana.
- McLane has paid tobacco taxes since 2000 and paid under protest after contesting the tax amount and basis of the invoice price.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the Department, holding McLane liable and adopting the Department’s view of the invoice price.
- The First Circuit reversed, concluding McLane was not liable under the Tobacco Tax Law and that certain issues were moot, prompting the Department’s writ to this Court.
- The Supreme Court held that the legislature intended to tax smokeless tobacco distribution and reversed, remanding for two pretermitted issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Tobacco Tax Law impose liability on smokeless tobacco dealers? | McLane argues no dealer liability for smokeless tobacco. | Department contends the tax applies to the dealer who first distributes smokeless tobacco in Louisiana. | Yes; McLane liable. |
| What is the correct basis for the invoice price under the tax for smokeless tobacco? | McLane asserts the invoice price should be the price paid by McLane to its supplier, or the lower manufacturer price, depending on interpretation. | Department argues the invoice price is the intermediary price charged to McLane by the distributor/manufacturer chain. | Remanded to resolve the pretermitted invoice-price issue. |
| Does the failure to amend 47:854 to include smokeless tobacco render the tax unconstitutional or contrary to legislative intent? | McLane contends the omission renders the tax unconstitutional. | Department argues the intent and purpose require taxing smokeless tobacco distribution, despite the omission. | Interpreted to reflect legislative intent; not unconstitutional; remand for related issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrah’s Bossier City Inv. Co., LLC v. Bridges, 41 So.3d 438 (La. 2010) (tax statutes must be interpreted to give effect to legislative intent)
- Cleco Evangeline, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Comm’n, 813 So.2d 351 (La. 2002) (tax statutes interpreted to reflect clear legislative intent)
- Tarver v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 634 So.2d 356 (La. 1994) (statutory interpretation aims to discern legislative intent)
- Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, 925 So.2d 1202 (La. 2006) (consider legislation as a coherent whole; avoid superfluous language)
- Burge v. State, 54 So.3d 1110 (La. 2011) (latest expression of legislative will governs when in conflict)
- Holly & Smith Architects, Inc. v. St. Helena Congregate Facility, Inc., 943 So.2d 1037 (La. 2006) (new statutes interpreted with regard to surrounding framework)
- ABL Mgmt., Inc. v. Board of Sup’rs of Southern Univ., 778 So.2d 131 (La. 2000) (legislative history and context inform interpretation)