RICHARDSON v. STATE ex rel. OKLAHOMA TAX COMMISSION
2017 OK 85
| Okla. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Gary L. Richardson (a resident taxpayer) sought original jurisdiction in the Oklahoma Supreme Court to challenge three 2017 statutes (H.B. 2433, H.B. 2348, H.B. 1449) as unconstitutional “revenue bills” under Okla. Const. art. V, § 33.
- H.B. 2433 reduced the state sales-tax exemption on motor vehicle purchases (partial removal of an exemption).
- H.B. 2348 decoupled Oklahoma’s standard deduction from the federal amount and froze the state standard deduction at its 2017 level for taxable years beginning Jan. 1, 2017; it passed with a simple majority but less than a 75% supermajority.
- H.B. 1449 imposed annual fees for electric-drive ($100) and hybrid-drive ($30) vehicles and directed proceeds to the State Highway Construction and Maintenance Fund.
- The Court had recently decided related questions: it held removals of exemptions are not strict tax levies in Oklahoma Auto. Dealers Ass’n v. State (2017 OK 64), and later determined the motor-fuel/EV fee was a tax subject to Article V, § 33 in Sierra Club v. State (2017 OK 83).
- The Court denied assumption of original jurisdiction here as the challenges were either moot (already decided) or not yet justiciable/ripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether H.B. 2433 is a revenue bill violating Art. V, § 33 | Richardson: removal of sales-tax exemption is a revenue-raising measure subject to § 33 | State: removal of exemption is not a levy of tax within § 33 | Moot/Previously decided — Court in Auto. Dealers held removals of exemptions are not strict tax levies; H.B. 2433 not subject to § 33 |
| Whether H.B. 2348 is a revenue bill under § 33 (freeze of state standard deduction) | Richardson: uncoupling and freezing the deduction raises revenue and thus is a revenue bill requiring supermajority | State: uncertain impact; may not be a revenue-raising bill or is not ripe for review | Not ripe — unclear whether it will raise revenue; challenge denied for lack of a justiciable controversy |
| Whether H.B. 1449 (EV/hybrid fees) is a revenue bill under § 33 | Richardson: fees are taxes raising revenue and thus must meet § 33 requirements | State: (argued not a revenue levy or otherwise valid) | Moot/Previously decided — Court in Sierra Club held the fees were taxes for revenue and unconstitutional under § 33 |
| Standing/Justiciability of the petition generally | Richardson: as a taxpayer he can challenge allegedly unconstitutional revenue measures | State: petitioner lacks a concrete, particularized injury and some claims are not ripe | Court declined original jurisdiction for lack of a justiciable controversy; Justice Wyrick concurred noting Richardson lacks standing to challenge H.B. 2348 since he did not allege he takes the standard deduction |
Key Cases Cited
- Okla. Auto. Dealers Ass'n v. State ex rel. Okla. Tax Comm'n, 401 P.3d 1152 (Okla. 2017) (removal of tax exemptions not a strict tax levy for purposes of Art. V, § 33)
- 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 definite, concrete controversy ripe for judicial decision)
- Rogers v. Excise Bd. of Greer Cty., 701 P.2d 754 (Okla. 1984) (courts will not decide abstract or hypothetical questions)
- Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co. v. Matthews, 273 P.3d 43 (Okla. 2012) (standing requires injury in fact; standing judged at commencement of suit)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (constitutional standing requires a concrete, particularized and actual or imminent injury)