202 Conn.App. 467
Conn. App. Ct.2021Background:
- Seramonte Associates owned multiple rental properties in Hamden and was required by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-63c(a) to "submit" annual rental income/expense forms to the town assessor by June 1.
- The assessor mailed forms and a cover letter stating submission requires the form to be "physically in the [a]ssessor’s office by 4:30 on June 1; faxes, e-mails and postmarks will not be accepted."
- Seramonte mailed the completed forms by first-class mail on May 31; the assessor received them on June 2.
- The assessor imposed a 10% penalty under § 12-63c(d), increasing assessed value by $132,145.16; the Board of Assessment Appeals upheld the penalty.
- Seramonte sued; the trial court granted summary judgment for the town on the statutory issue (submit = received by June 1) and struck the excessive-fines constitutional claims; the court of appeals affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “submit” in §12-63c(a) | "Submit" means to send/mail; timely mailing = timely filing | "Submit" requires delivery/receipt; legislature includes "or postmarked" when mailing suffices | "Submit" is unambiguous in context of Title 12: forms must be received by assessor by June 1 |
| Rule of lenity / strict construction | Ambiguity favors taxpayer; rule of lenity applies to civil penalties | Rule of lenity applies only if statute remains ambiguous after full construction | No lenity: statute unambiguous when read with related tax statutes, so lenity not invoked |
| Whether the 10% penalty is subject to the Federal Excessive Fines Clause | Penalty has deterrent/retributive purpose so is a fine subject to Eighth Amendment review | The penalty is remedial/tax collection-related, not punitive; Eighth Amendment does not apply | Not punitive under federal test; Excessive Fines Clause inapplicable |
| Whether the 10% penalty violates Connecticut’s Excessive Fines Clause | Penalty is grossly disproportionate for a one-day delay; constitutes an excessive fine | State precedent treats tax penalties as penalties (not "fines") to enforce tax duties; legislature has broad discretion | Under Conn. law the 10% is a statutory penalty, not a constitutional "fine"; not excessive under controlling precedent |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (two-step test: first ask whether the exaction is punitive; if so, assess excessiveness)
- United States v. Viloski, 814 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2016) (distinguishes remedial in rem forfeitures from punitive fines under Excessive Fines Clause)
- Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 511 U.S. 767 (U.S. 1994) (tax conditioned on criminal conduct is indicative of punitive intent)
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Blodgett, 96 Conn. 361 (Conn. 1921) (successor tax not a "fine" under state constitution; penalties to enforce tax duties are permissible)
- PJM & Associates, LC v. Bridgeport, 292 Conn. 125 (Conn. 2009) (upholds purpose and magnitude of §12-63c penalty; courts give wide latitude to legislature on tax penalties)
- Second National Bank of New Haven v. Loftus, 121 Conn. 454 (Conn. 1936) (discusses breadth of "fine" concept and legislative discretion over penalty amounts)
- Ugrin v. Cheshire, 307 Conn. 364 (Conn. 2012) (statutory interpretation principles: ascertain legislative intent from text and related statutes)
- Felician Sisters of St. Francis of Connecticut, Inc. v. Historic District Commission, 284 Conn. 838 (Conn. 2008) (statutes on same subject must be read harmoniously to ensure coherent construction)