RICHARDSON v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION
2017 OK 85
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Gary L. Richardson sought original jurisdiction in the Oklahoma Supreme Court to challenge three 2017 enactments (H.B. 2433, H.B. 2348, H.B. 1449) as unconstitutional “revenue bills” under Okla. Const. art. V, § 33.
- H.B. 2433 narrowed a sales-tax exemption for motor-vehicle purchases.
- H.B. 2348 decoupled Oklahoma’s standard income-tax deduction from the federal amount and froze it at the 2017 level for tax years beginning on/after Jan. 1, 2017.
- H.B. 1449 imposed annual fees on electric-drive ($100) and hybrid-drive ($30) vehicles, directing proceeds to the State Highway Construction and Maintenance Fund.
- The Court previously decided related issues: it held removals of exemptions (as in H.B. 2433) are not revenue bills (Auto. Dealers), and it later held H.B. 1449’s Motor Fuels Tax Fee was a revenue-raising tax and unconstitutional (Sierra Club).
- The Court denied assumption of original jurisdiction here: H.B. 2433 and H.B. 1449 challenges were moot given prior rulings; H.B. 2348 was not ripe because it was unclear whether it would increase revenue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether H.B. 2433 is a revenue bill under art. V, § 33 | Richardson: narrowing sales-tax exemption is a revenue-raising measure subject to § 33 | State: removal of exemption is not a tax levy subject to § 33 | Moot — Court previously held removal of exemptions are not revenue bills (Auto. Dealers) |
| Whether H.B. 2348 is a revenue bill under art. V, § 33 | Richardson: freezing the state standard deduction decoupled from federal law functions as a revenue-raising change | State: uncertain impact on revenue; not demonstrably a revenue increase now | Not ripe — unclear whether it will raise revenue, so no justiciable controversy |
| Whether H.B. 1449 is a revenue bill under art. V, § 33 | Richardson: Motor Fuels Tax Fee is a tax raising revenue and must comply with § 33 | State: (implicitly) fee structured as regulatory/allocative measure | Moot — Court later held the fee was a revenue-raising tax and unconstitutional (Sierra Club) |
| Whether the Court should assume original jurisdiction | Richardson: seeks declaratory and injunctive relief under original jurisdiction | State: jurisdiction inappropriate because issues are moot or not ripe; standing/justiciability concerns | Denied — original jurisdiction declined for lack of a justiciable case (mootness/ ripeness); concurring justice would rest on petitioner’s lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Fent v. Fallin, 345 P.3d 1113 (Okla. 2014) (Article V, § 33 applies only to bills that raise or increase revenue)
- Dank v. Benson, 5 P.3d 1088 (Okla. 2000) (justiciability requires a definite, concrete controversy capable of judicial resolution)
- Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer Cty., 701 P.2d 754 (Okla. 1984) (courts will not decide abstract or hypothetical questions)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires a concrete, particularized, actual or imminent injury)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Matthews, 273 P.3d 43 (Okla. 2012) (standing must be shown at commencement of suit)