Murray County v. Homesales, Inc.
330 P.3d 519
| Okla. | 2014Background
- Dispute centers on whether a transfer of real property between affiliated entities constitutes a 'sale' under the Documentary Stamp Tax Act (DSTA).
- Foreclosure actions: Chase foreclosed four properties and was the successful bidder, but deeds were issued to Chase’s affiliates (Homesales or FNMA) rather than Chase.
- Deeds were recorded as exempt from documentary taxes; no documentary taxes were paid.
- Counties sued to collect taxes and challenged exemptions; district court granted partial summary judgment for Counties; interlocutory appeal granted.
- Issue framing: whether the Counties have enforcement standing and whether post-foreclosure conveyances were taxable sales; ultimate holding requires showing consideration over $100 for a sale.
- Court ultimately reverses the interlocutory order on standing/claims and remands for further proceedings because evidence of consideration exceeding $100 for each conveyance was not established.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do Counties have statutory enforcement authority over the DSTA? | Counties rely on general authority to sue and the need to enforce the DSTA. | OTC alone enforces the DSTA under §3205; counties lack direct enforcement authority. | Counties lack enforcement authority to prosecute DSTA violations. |
| Do Counties have standing to seek declaratory relief? | Despite lack of enforcement authority, declaratory relief is available to test exemptions and tax status. | No standing to seek declaratory relief if they cannot enforce the statute. | Counties have standing to seek declaratory relief challenging exemptions. |
| Did the foreclosures and subsequent post-foreclosure transfers constitute taxable 'sales' under the DSTA? | Transfers to related entities may be taxable if consideration exceeds $100. | Exemptions apply if the conveyances fall under foreclosure-related exemptions or involve agency-principal transfers. | Resolution turns on whether actual consideration exceeded $100; if not, no sale. |
| Are the Homesales and FNMA conveyances taxable given the record lacks proof of >$100 consideration? | The transfers to Homesales/FNMA could be taxable absent exemption. | Transfers may be exempt as foreclosures or agency-to-principal conveyances; need proof of >$100. | Taxability cannot be determined without proving consideration >$100 for each conveyance. |
| Does the Gentry property's chain of transfers affect the analysis of taxability? | Multiple interrelated transfers could create a sale with >$100 consideration. | Exemptions may apply; agency relationships and lack of consideration complicate taxability. | No final judgment on Gentry chain without showing >$100 consideration at each step. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnston v. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n, 497 P.2d 1295 (Okla. 1972) (defines 'sold' and taxation of transfers of realty under the DSTA)
- Jim Walter Homes, Inc. v. County Clerk of Okfuskee County, 734 P.2d 849 (Okla. Civ. App. 1986) (recognizes exchange of foreclosure judgment for sheriffs deed can constitute consideration)
- Berkeley Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Newark v. United States, 301 F. Supp. 22 (D.N.J. 1969) (federal perspective on when a transfer constitutes a sale for tax purposes)
- Independent School Dist. No. 9 v. Glass, 639 P.2d 1233 (Okla. 1982) (standing for equitable relief when statutory remedy is inadequate)
- Fent v. Contingency Review Bd., 163 P.3d 512 (Okla. 2007) (standing and equitable relief considerations in tax matters)
- Conoco, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health of State of OK, 651 P.2d 125 (Okla. 1982) (declaratory relief does not extend jurisdiction where none exists)