291 P.3d 579
Mont.2012Background
- Bull Mountains Mine is an underground coal mine with surface facilities in Musselshell County; in 2009 mining extended into Yellowstone County.
- Coal gross proceeds tax is 5% of the contract sales price, administered by the Montana Department of Revenue, with operator-reported county-by-county tonnage and value.
- For 2009, taxable coal gross proceeds were allocated by the Department as $6,572,340 to Musselshell and $2,538,195 to Yellowstone, yielding taxes of $328,617 and $126,909 respectively.
- Musselshell filed suit seeking declaratory judgment that Yellowstone County improperly received a portion of the tax; the district court granted summary judgment upholding the apportionment.
- Statutes governing coal gross proceeds tax include 15-23-701, -702, -703; apportionment principles appear in 15-23-101, -105, and related provisions; contract sales price is defined as the price f.o.b. mine.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Department properly apportioned the tax between Musselshell and Yellowstone and was not required to adopt new APA rules before apportionment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the tax should be apportioned between Musselshell and Yellowstone based on mining location. | Musselshell contends all tax should go to Musselshell since the mining occurs there. | Yellowstone and the Department argue apportionment among counties is required where mining occurs in multiple counties. | Coal gross proceeds tax appropriately apportioned between Musselshell and Yellowstone. |
| Whether the Department needed to adopt APA rules before apportionment. | Department must adopt APA rules to implement a just or proper apportionment. | Statutes and existing administrative rules suffice; no new rule required. | No new administrative rule required; statutes and existing rules are clear. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Plum Creek Timber Co., 362 Mont. 368, 264 P.3d 1090 (Mont. 2011) (summary-judgment standard and review of conclusions of law)
- Friends of the Wild Swan v. DNRC, 330 Mont. 186, 127 P.3d 394 (Mont. 2005) (principles of statutory interpretation and deference to agency actions)
- Board of Barbers v. Big Sky College of Barber-Styling, 192 Mont. 159, 626 P.2d 1269 (Mont. 1981) (administrative-rule requirements; reasonableness and necessity)