BRUTUS 630, LLC v. TOWN OF BEL AIR, Maryland
No. 67, Sept. Term, 2015
Court of Appeals of Maryland
June 23, 2016
139 A.3d 957
Charles B. Keenan, Jr. (Craig H. DeRan, Stark and Keenan, P.A., Bel Air, MD), on brief, for respondent.
Argued before BARBERA, C.J., BATTAGLIA*, GREENE, ADKINS, MCDONALD, WATTS, HOTTEN, JJ.
MCDONALD, J.
Petitioner Brutus 630, LLC (“Brutus 630“) seeks a refund of certain sewer connection charges that it asserts were wrongly charged by Respondent Town of Bel Air (“Town“). The question before us is not whether Brutus 630 gets a refund, but rather whether it gets a day in court—more precisely, a day before the administrative agency known as the Maryland Tax Court—to decide its claim for a refund.
Brutus 630, the assignee of the entity that paid the charges, seeks a refund pursuant to
In this case, the Town rejected Brutus 630‘s refund claim. On appeal, the Tax Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim because the claim was not authorized by the refund statute and, accordingly, even if the Town had miscalculated or illegally imposed the charges, the common law voluntary payment doctrine precluded Brutus 630 from obtaining a refund.
We hold that Brutus 630 may pursue its refund claim under the refund statute, that its claim is not barred by the voluntary payment doctrine, and that the Maryland Tax Court has jurisdiction to consider the appeal. We express no opinion on whether the claim should be granted.
I
Background
A. Refund of Money Paid to a Local Government
On occasion, a person who has paid money to the State or a local government may seek a refund of the payment on the ground that the payment was made erroneously or without a basis in law. Under the common law, the default rule, known as the voluntary payment doctrine, was that a payment voluntarily made to the State or local government could not be recovered—a rule that some courts have characterized as “harsh.” There are some common law exceptions to the rule and statutory provisions that override the rule by allowing a claim for a refund. Thus, one who seeks a refund of a payment to the government must be able to point to a common law exception to the voluntary payment doctrine or to a statute that authorizes such a claim.
1. Voluntary Payment Doctrine
Origin of the Doctrine
The voluntary payment doctrine is a principle developed under the English common law. Subject to certain exceptions,
Practitioner‘s Guide to the Voluntary Payment Doctrine, 37 S. Ill. U. L.J. 91 (2012). The doctrine has been adopted or acknowledged in some form in every American jurisdiction. Id., Table 1 (Index of Cases by Jurisdiction).
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse” may be an apt rationale when applied to a murderer ignorant of the degrees of homicide, a fraudster whose scheme unintentionally falls within range of the theft statute, or a towed motorist who neglects to read a street sign before parking. It seems less compelling when applied to a payment required by a law that is murky in its coverage or complex in its computation. Perhaps for that reason, courts have searched for other policies to justify the voluntary payment doctrine: (1) providing certainty to the payee that allows the payee to use the funds received; (2) encouraging discourse, rather than litigation, over disputed charges; (3) penalizing a payor‘s negligence; (4) allocating the risk of late-discovered mistakes; (5) not allowing the payor a litigation advantage in the choice of when to sue and whether to be plaintiff or defendant in a controversy over a disputed charge. Flora, supra, at 94-97.
The Voluntary Payment Doctrine in Maryland
This Court applied the voluntary payment doctrine in a series of cases in the 19th century. See City of Baltimore v. Lefferman, 4 Gill 425, 431 (1846) (“It is now established, by an unbroken series of adjudications in English and American courts, that where money is voluntarily and fairly paid, with a full knowledge of the facts and circumstances under which it is demanded, it cannot be recovered back in a court of law, upon the ground, that the payment was made under a misapprehension of the legal rights and obligations of the party.“) (empha-sis in original); Baltimore & Susquehanna R.R. Co. v. Faunce, 6 Gill 68, 76 (1847) (“It is rightly said, that a party cannot recover money voluntarily paid with a full knowledge of all the facts, although no obligation to make payment such existed. If informed of the law which exempts him, he must abide by the consequences of his folly, in abandoning the protection it afforded him—if ignorant, he was bound to acquire more information.“); Lester v. City of Baltimore, 29 Md. 415, 419–20 (1868).
Application of the Doctrine to Payments Made to the Government
While the common law principle originated in cases involving private parties, it
Exceptions
The courts have recognized some common law exceptions to the voluntary payment doctrine. Chief among the exceptions are cases involving payments made as a result of fraud, mistake of fact, or duress. Flora, supra, at 98-109; see Furman v. Lanahan, 159 Md. 1, 5, 149 A. 465 (1930) (“[w]here money has been paid upon misrepresentation, under a mistake of fact, or under circumstances amounting to duress, it may be recovered in an appropriate action,” but where money has been paid voluntarily with a full knowledge of the facts, it cannot be recovered); Baltimore & Susquehanna R.R. Co., 6 Gill at 77 (“A payment cannot well be said to be made voluntarily when it is made in consequence alone of a false view of the facts.“); see also Dua, 370 Md. at 646 (common law actions to recover excessive interest).
In addition, to mitigate the perceived harshness of the doctrine, the General Assembly has enacted several laws that authorize State and local agencies to refund mistaken, erroneous, or illegal payments in certain circumstances.
2. The Refund Statute
Among the legislation that the General Assembly has enacted to mitigate the voluntary payment doctrine is a statute providing for refunds of certain payments made to local governments, including municipalities. It is currently codified at
- Erroneously pays to a county or municipality a greater amount of tax, fee, charge, interest, or penalty than is properly payable; or
- Pays to a county or municipality a tax, fee, charge, interest, or penalty that is erroneously, illegally, or wrongfully assessed or collected in any manner.
The claimant may appeal the determination of the local government to the Maryland Tax Court within 30 days after the municipality notifies the claimant of its determination.
Despite its name, the Maryland Tax Court is an administrative unit within the executive branch of State government.
B. Factual and Procedural History
This case arose out of a dispute between Brutus 630 and the Town concerning the imposition and calculation of certain sewer connection fees imposed by the Town. The Tax Court did not make findings of fact, as there was no evidentiary hearing in that forum and the parties did not agree to a stipulation of facts. However, the essential facts for our purposes do not appear to be in dispute.
1. Sewer Connection Fees Charged by the Town
The Town has relied on Harford County for the treatment of sewage generated within the Town pursuant to a series of agreements between the Town and the County.4 According to the decision of the Town‘s hearing officer in this case, the Town collects various charges related to the use of the County sewer system and pays those charges to the County. Pertinent to this case, under the most recent agreement, the Town has agreed to collect and pay to the County user charges, equivalent area connection charges, sewer connection charges, and other related charges in return for the County‘s provision of sewage treatment service to Town residents. That agreement describes the purpose for the charges in the following terms: (1) the user charge defrays the cost of transmission and treatment of the sewage; (2) the equivalent area connection charge constitutes the Town‘s proportional share of the cost of existing sewage treatment facilities; and (3) the sewer connection charge defrays the cost of future replacement and expansion of the sewage treatment facilities. The charges are imposed on property owners through Town ordinances. See
2. The Charges in Dispute
Brutus 630 is a real estate developer that developed certain property in the Town as a community of 274 condominiums. As part of the project, Brutus 630 sold lots to NVR, Inc., a builder, for the construction of the buildings. As a condition of obtaining building permits from the Town during the period from February 2004 through July 2011, NVR paid the Town a total of $1,186,627 in sewer connection fees. NVR assigned its interest in a potential refund of those sewer connection charges to Brutus 630.5
3. Denial of Refund Application
On February 12, 2012, Brutus 630 filed an application for a refund of the sewer connection charges with the Town‘s Director of Finance, its tax collector. Citing the refund statute, Brutus 630‘s application contended, among other things, that the Town lacked legal authority for the sewer connection charges and that the Town had incorrectly computed the charges. The Director of Finance held a hearing, after which she denied Brutus 630‘s refund application in a written decision issued May 11, 2012. As an initial matter, the Director of Finance opined that the refund statute did not apply to the claim and that the Town was considering the claim only as a “matter of courtesy.”6 On the merits of the refund request, the Director of Finance concluded that the Town had legal authority to collect the sewer connection charges, that it had correctly calculated the amount of the sewer connection charges, and that it had remitted that amount to the County pursuant to the terms of the most recent agreement with the County.
4. Administrative Appeal to Tax Court
On June 7, 2012, Brutus 630 filed an appeal with the Maryland Tax Court reiterating, in some detail, its arguments that the Town had exceeded its authority in assessing the sewer connection charges and that, in any event, the Town had erred in its computations. The Town filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that the Tax Court was without jurisdiction to hear the merits of the appeal because the sewer connection charges were not taxes, but rather regulatory fees charged for services. Brutus 630 and the Town also filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the merits of the refund claim.
After conducting two hearings for legal argument,7 the Tax Court decided that it
5. Judicial Review
Brutus 630 then sought judicial review of the Tax Court decision in the Circuit Court for Harford County. The Town filed a motion to dismiss, which the Circuit Court granted on December 12, 2013. Brutus 630 noted a timely appeal to the Court of Special Appeals, which affirmed in an unreported opinion. We granted Brutus 630‘s petition for a writ of certiorari to decide whether the Maryland Tax Court has jurisdiction under the refund statute to consider the appeal of the Town‘s denial of the refund application.
II
Discussion
We review a decision of an administrative agency like the Maryland Tax Court by “looking through” the decisions of the Circuit Court and Court of Special Appeals and evaluating directly the decision of the agency. Green v. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 430 Md. 119, 132, 59 A.3d 1001 (2013). Although we would accord deference to any fact findings of the Tax Court, it made no findings here. (As noted above, while there may be some dispute over the facts concerning the merits of the refund claim, there do not appear to be any disputed facts pertinent to the question of the Tax Court‘s jurisdiction.) In any event, we accord less deference to the Tax Court‘s legal conclusions than to fact findings. Green, 430 Md. at 132-33.
A. Whether a Claimant May Seek a Refund of a Sewer Connection Charge under the Refund Statute
In its oral ruling, the Tax Court opined that it did not have jurisdiction of the refund claim because the sewer connection charges in question are not “taxes or fees in the nature of taxes, but rather ... charges for the sale, [of] the service, or a commodity.” Based on our review of the refund statute text, its legislative history, and the prior decisions of this Court, this appears to be an excessively narrow conception of the refund statute. Moreover, the authority relied upon by the Tax Court in its oral ruling is distinguishable from this case. Finally, other arguments advanced by the Town for a narrow construction of the refund statute lack merit.
1. Construing the Refund Statute
As always, we start with the text of the particular provision at issue and its context in the statute. We consider the legislative history of the statute to resolve ambiguities or to confirm what we derive from the text. Along the way, we may consider the consequences of alternative readings for consistency with the legislative purpose. See Blue v. Prince George‘s County, 434 Md. 681, 689, 76 A.3d 1129 (2013).
Text
The text of the refund statute does not limit its scope to taxes. As noted above, it provides that a claimant may seek a refund
The current placement of the refund statute in the Maryland Code does not otherwise suggest a limitation on its scope. The refund statute pertaining to local governments now appears in a subtitle of Title 20 of the Local Government Article. For the most part, the other provisions of that title of the Local Government Article relate to taxes, but that title is not focused exclusively on taxes—other provisions of Title 20 also relate to impact fees and user fees. See, e.g.,
Legislative History
The legislative history of the statute, as acknowledged in the prior decisions of this Court, confirms that the General Assembly did not intend to limit the refund statute to taxes or to require fine distinctions about what other charges or fees imposed by a local government could be equated to taxes.8
While the Legislature has long authorized taxpayers to seek refunds of taxes paid in error,9 the general refund statute applicable to this case can be traced to one first enacted in 1929. Chapter 226, Laws of Maryland 1929. That legislation contained two refund provisions. One, then codified as
In 1941, the Legislature restructured the refund provisions to provide separate sections for refunds of “ordinary” State taxes, local government taxes, and “special taxes or other fees or charges” paid to the State, and added provisions governing
In Rapley, the appellants had paid under protest a transfer tax assessed by Montgomery County in connection with their acquisition of a tract of land in that county. They then sued the county for repayment of the transfer tax on the grounds that the transfer tax was discriminatory, unreasonable, and arbitrary. The Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of those contentions and affirmed dismissal of the suit on the ground that the voluntary payment doctrine precluded the appellants from seeking a refund. The Court explained that none of the refund statutes in Article 81 pertained to the transfer tax paid by the appellants to the county.12 As a result, the Court concluded, “they have collided head on with the common law rule“—i.e., the voluntary payment doctrine. 261 Md. at 110. Although the Court stated that
the result was compelled by the existing refund statutes—or lack thereof—it characterized the basis of its holding as a “harsh rule.” Id. at 111.
In an apparent response to Rapley, the General Assembly expanded the refund statutes to extend to claims like the one made in that case. Chapter 644, Laws of Maryland 1971. That law, which was enacted within weeks of the Rapley decision, provided that “the refund claim procedures generally applicable to State special taxes or other fees or charges shall likewise be applicable to county and municipal special taxes or other fees or charges.” Id.; see also Fiscal Note for Senate Bill 171 (1971) (“This bill would provide that the refund claim procedures used by the State generally also would apply to the counties and municipalities as they pertain to special taxes or other fees, charges, penalties or interest paid.“). As is evident, the 1971 legislation also extended the refund provision to municipalities.
Since the 1971 amendment, the Legislature has not substantively amended the refund statute, although it has been recodified several times as part of code revision. The portion of the statute pertaining to the State and its agencies now appears in
This Court had occasion to consider the refund statute as applied to a municipality in Vytar Associates v. City of Annapolis, 301 Md. 558, 483 A.2d 1263 (1984). That case concerned license fees paid by landlords in the City of Annapolis. A prior decision of the Court had held that the City‘s collection of license fees prior to the General Assembly‘s passage of enabling legislation for the fees was unconstitutional. The landlords sought refunds of those fees from the City, the City denied the claims, and the landlords appealed. This Court held that the license fees fell within the category of “other fees or charges” that were “erroneously or mistakenly paid.” 301 Md. at 563-64. Accordingly, the Court held that the payments could be recovered pursuant to a claim under the refund statute and that the Tax Court could consider an appeal of the City‘s denial of the refund claims. The Court explicitly rejected the City‘s contention that the phrase “other fees or charges” in the refund statute should be construed narrowly. Id. at 564 n. 4.
More recently, this Court considered the scope of the refund statute in relation to the voluntary payment doctrine in Bowman v. Goad, 348 Md. 199, 703 A.2d 144 (1997). In that case, the plaintiff brought suit to recover allegedly excessive fees charged by sheriffs for service of process in motor vehicle prosecutions. This Court affirmed dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff was required to pursue the administrative remedy provided by the refund statute. The Court noted that the voluntary payment doctrine would preclude payment of a refund in an action brought under the common law. However, citing both the State and local government sections of the refund statute, the Court observed that “the General Assembly has now provided broad administrative refund remedies covering every type of tax, fee, or charge improperly collected by a Maryland governmental entity.” 348 Md. at 204 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Court held that the exclusive remedy for seeking a refund of excessive charges for service of process was the refund statute. Id.
This Court has subsequently reiterated the broad nature of the refund statutes. See Halle Development, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County, 371 Md. 312, 328-30, 808 A.2d 1280 (2002) (opining that a land developer could have invoked the local government refund statute to pursue a refund claim of allegedly illegal school waiver fees paid to a county pursuant to the county‘s adequate public facilities ordinance); Frankel v. Board of Regents, 361 Md. 298, 308, 761 A.2d 324 (2000) (opining that the State agency refund provision “is applicable when a state college or university charges a student more for tuition than is legally payable“). Neither in Bowman nor in those subsequent cases has this Court
Summary
The text of
2. The Tax Court Decision
The Tax Court adopted a narrow view of the refund statutes. In an oral ruling explaining its reasons for granting the Town‘s motion to dismiss, the Tax Court relied on a 1996 decision of the Court of Special Appeals—a decision that preceded Bowman and most of the other cases described above—and on the common law voluntary payment doctrine.
Whether the West Capital Decision Controls
In its oral ruling, the Tax Court cited the decision of the Court of Special Appeals in West Capital Assoc., LP v. City of Annapolis, 110 Md.App. 443, 677 A.2d 655 (1996), for the proposition that a claim for refund of sewer connection charges is not within the purview of the refund statute and that, therefore, the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal in this case. In our view, West Capital does not govern the resolution of the issue in this case for at least two reasons: (1) the payment in dispute in West Capital was not a “tax, fee, charge, interest, or penalty” imposed by a municipality, but rather a contractual payment to the City of Annapolis acting in a proprietary capacity; and (2) even if language in the West Capital decision could be construed to exclude the sewer connection charges in this case from the purview of the refund statute, such an interpretation would be at odds with the broad construction placed on the current version of the refund statute, clearly a remedial measure, by this Court in Vytar, Bowman, Halle, and Frankel.
In West Capital, a developer owned land just outside the City of Annapolis. The developer entered into an agreement with the City under which the City would provide water and sewer service to the property in return for payments that were to be equal to: (1) the rate for water and sewer service in effect for customers within the City; (2) connection charges customarily charged by the City; (3) capital facility charges and assessments customarily charged by the City, and (4) an annual fee in an amount equivalent to real estate taxes if the developer‘s property had been annexed by the City.
After making payments under the agreement for six years, the developer refused to pay the portion that, under the agreement, was keyed to real estate taxes, and demanded a refund of payments previously made. The City refused to refund the prior payments and sued the developer for breach of contract. The developer then filed a petition for a refund under the refund statute15 and filed a motion to dismiss or to stay the breach of contract action on the theory that the Tax Court had primary jurisdiction of the dispute. The circuit court denied the developer‘s motion and ultimately granted
summary judgment in favor of the City on its contract claim and against the developer on the developer‘s counterclaim for a refund.
Regardless of some of the language used by the court in West Capital, it is evident that the court‘s focus was on the contractual nature of the payments by the developer, rather than on the municipal charges or fees on which the amount of the contract payments was based. This is particularly clear when one considers that the dispute was triggered by the developer‘s refusal to make a payment that was equated to real estate taxes. There is no suggestion in West Capital that real estate taxes are outside the refund statute—i.e., that the developer could not have sought a refund if the developer‘s property had been annexed by the City and the charges in dispute had in fact been real estate taxes (as opposed to contractual payments that equaled hypothetical real estate taxes).
Whether the Voluntary Payment Doctrine Applies
The Tax Court also held that, even if it had jurisdiction over the refund claim and even if the claim were meritorious, the voluntary payment doctrine would bar a refund in this case. Our conclusion that the Tax Court had jurisdiction over the administrative appeal necessarily rests on a conclusion that a claim may be made under the refund statute, which is a statutory exception to the voluntary payment doctrine.18
The Town advances two arguments not explicitly relied upon by the Tax Court to argue that the refund statute should19 be construed narrowly.19 First, it relies on a canon of construction known as ejusdem generis20—essentially, when general terms follow a specific term in a list, the general terms are construed to refer to things similar in nature to the specific term. Tribbitt v. State, 403 Md. 638, 656, 943 A.2d 1260 (2008). Second, the Town argues that another statute in a different article of the Maryland Code that generally describes the Tax Court‘s jurisdiction—
Whether the Principle of Ejusdem Generis Requires a Narrow Construction
The Town argues that, under the principle of ejusdem generis, the references to “fee,” “charge,” “interest,” and “penalty” in the refund statute should be considered general terms qualified by the term “tax” that also appears in the list of items for which a refund may be requested. However, the principle of ejusdem generis is simply a rule of construction to deal with uncertainty and is not to be used to defeat legislative intent. See Blake v. State, 210 Md. 459, 462, 124 A.2d 273 (1956); Gooch v. United States, 297 U.S. 124, 128, 56 S.Ct. 395, 80 L.Ed. 522 (1936). Here, as noted above, the Legislature intended a broad remedy that covers all types of taxes, fees, and charges imposed by a local government. See Bowman, 348 Md. at 204, 703 A.2d 144.
Even if the remedial legislative purpose were not evident, the presence of the term “tax” together with “fee” and “charge” in a list of payments that might be required by a government entity does not mean that the meanings of the terms “fee” and “charge” are colored by the presence of the word “tax” in the same list. For example, in Benson v. State, 389 Md. 615, 887 A.2d 525 (2005), the Court construed a similar list of terms that appears in Article 14 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. That constitutional provision states “[t]hat no aid, charge, tax, burthen or fees ought to be rated or levied, under any pretense, without the consent of the Legislature.” The Court interpreted this provision as encompassing five types of payments. 389 Md. at 634-35, 887 A.2d 525 (explaining that an “aid” is defined as an act of helping, a “charge” is an expense or cost, a “burthen” is an obligation imposed upon a person or property, a “tax” is a charge imposed ordinarily for public purposes, and a “fee” is a charge for labor or services). Given that refunds may be sought for governmental charges that violate Article 14 and similar constitutional proscriptions,21 it would be odd to construe the terms “fee” and “charge” more narrowly in
Whether TG § 3-103 Requires a Narrow Construction of LG § 20-113 et seq.
The Town argues that
The Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the final decision, final determination, or final order of a property tax assessment appeal board or any other unit of the State government or of a political subdivision of the State that is authorized to make the final decision or determination or issue the final order about any tax issue, including:
- the valuation, assessment, or classification of property;
- the imposition of a tax;
- the determination of a claim for refund;
the application of an abatement, reduction, or revision of any assessment or tax; or - the application for an exemption from any assessment or tax.
There is no question that the Tax Court has jurisdiction of refund claims relating to taxes. That responsibility is given to the Tax Court not only by
This Court has previously rejected an argument that a predecessor statute of
In any event, the legislative history of the Tax Court and the refund statute confirms that the Tax Court‘s appellate jurisdiction is co-extensive with the various types of refund claims authorized by the refund statute. From its inception, the Maryland Tax Court has had responsibility for adjudicating appeals of claims for refunds under the refund statute. When the General Assembly created the Tax Court in 1959,24 it gave that agency responsibility for hearing appeals under the various provisions of the refund statute, which were then codified together in Article 81 of the Maryland Code. See Maryland Code, Article 81, §§ 217, 247A (1957, 1960 Supp.). As recounted earlier,25 the provisions relating to refunds from State agencies and local governments were later recodified in different articles, but the Tax Court retained responsibility for adjudicating administrative appeals of refund claims arising from both provisions. See
Had there been a conflict between
B. Summary
Because the plain language of the refund statute, the legislative purpose underlying the statute, and this Court‘s prior cases interpreting the statute all favor a broad interpretation of the statute, we conclude that the refund statute would encompass a claim for the sewer connection charges imposed by the Town in this case. Under
III Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we hold:
1—A person who has paid a sewer connection fee imposed by a municipality and alleges that the fee is illegal or miscalculated may seek a refund from the municipality under
2—The voluntary payment doctrine does not bar such a refund claim.
3—The Maryland Tax Court has jurisdiction under
In the context of this case, the Town properly provided a forum for the refund claim asserted by Brutus 630. The Maryland Tax Court now has the responsibility in the administrative appeal to decide whether the Town correctly denied that claim. The Tax Court‘s decision on the merits will be subject to judicial review, should either party wish to pursue it. As should be evident, our decision does not concern the merits of Brutus 630‘s refund claim, but rather whether there is a forum in which that claim can be adjudicated. It would be inappropriate for us to express an opinion on the merits of that claim at this juncture.
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED TO THAT COURT WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR HARFORD COUNTY WITH INSTRUCTIONS TO REMAND THE CASE TO THE MARYLAND TAX COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. COSTS IN THIS COURT AND IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS TO BE PAID BY RESPONDENT.
WATTS and HOTTEN, JJ., dissent.
WATTS, J., dissenting, in which HOTTEN, J., joins.
Respectfully, I dissent. I would hold that the Maryland Tax Court (“the Tax Court“) correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate this case; accordingly, I would not reach the issue of whether the voluntary payment doctrine barred Brutus 630, LLC (“Brutus“), Petitioner,
The question that is key to this case‘s resolution is whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction to resolve a claim for a refund of sewer connection charges.
The Majority answers this question in the affirmative by relying on
A claim for a refund may be filed with the tax collector who collects the tax, fee, charge, interest, or penalty by a claimant who:
- erroneously pays to a county or municipality a greater amount of tax, fee, charge, interest, or penalty than is properly and legally payable; or
- pays to a county or municipality a tax, fee, charge, interest, or penalty that is erroneously, illegally, or wrongfully assessed or collected in any manner.
(Emphasis added). In turn,
The Majority reasons that
The majority opinion states that
379, 139 A.3d at 971 (emphasis in original). According to the Majority, under the Town‘s reading of the statutes,
I respectfully disagree with the Majority. I concur with the Tax Court that, by its plain language,
I agree with the Court of Special Appeals‘s conclusion that the sewer connection charges “do not constitute a tax or a charge in the nature of a tax and, therefore, the Tax Court was without jurisdiction to hear Brutus‘[s] appeal.” Sewer connection charges, in particular, do not
Instead, here, the governing statute is
The Tax Court has jurisdiction to hear appeals from the final decision, final determination, or final order of a property tax assessment appeal board or any other unit of the State government or of a political subdivision of the State that is authorized to make the final decision or determination or issue the final order about any tax issue, including:
- the valuation, assessment, or classification of property;
- the imposition of a tax;
- the determination of a claim for refund;
- the application for an abatement, reduction, or revision of any assessment or tax; or
- the application for an exemption from any assessment or tax.
(Emphasis added). Thus, by its plain language,
As such, the question is whether sewer connection charges are a tax or charge in the nature of a tax such that the Tax Court would have jurisdiction to hear Brutus‘s appeal. As the Town points out, sewer connection charges are used to pay a debt that is incurred in construction of sewer treatment facilities servicing the properties assessed for those charges,
and are not like tax assessments by the local government. Indeed, as the Town notes, the sewer connection charges in this case were required by agreements between Harford County and the Town; in other words, the charges were not required by statute (although they are authorized by
For the above reasons, respectfully, I dissent.
Judge HOTTEN has authorized me to state that she joins in this opinion.