*1 H7 value, Tax that consistent with the Bank’s historical book in com- Shares was South holding Fidelity North Bank’s in Bank and with Section puting the current value of Tax I therefore would January shares as of 1999. There is 701.1 of the Code. in to the Fidelity grant Department’s Exceptions Bank or other authority by Majority poses cited in First Union Nat’l Court’s decision to the followed impediment approach Bank v. Commonwealth. Department here. Co.,
In Tool Sales & Inc. v. Service
Commonwealth,
536 Pa.
(1993), Pennsylvania Supreme Court it in applied
articulated settled rule that Department’s which involved the
calculation a corporate taxpayer’s capi- tal purposes. stock value for tax The rule DAIMLERCHRYSLER applies equally here: CORPORATION, principle It is a well established Petitioner that agencies administrative law are en v. in interpreting titled deference the stat
utes enforce. Other in this courts Pennsylvania, COMMONWEALTH that an Commonwealth have held ad Respondent. agency’s interpretation ministrative disregarded
should be overturned or
DaimlerChrysler Corporation,
only
cogent
reasons or where it is
Petitioner
“clearly erroneous”. Where the statuto
v.
ry
technically complex
scheme is as
as
Pennsylvania,
Tax
Reform
“a
Commonwealth of
reviewing
Respondent.
court
chary
must be even more
to sub
stitute
expertise
discretion for the
Pennsylvania.
Commonwealth Court
agency.”
administrative
The court
SmithKline
Corp.
[Beckman
Com
Argued Sept.
2005.
monwealth,
85 Pa.Cmwlth.
A.2d
Decided Oct.
curiam,
per
508 Pa.
aff'd
(1985)
preting the Tax Reform Code will not be
disregarded by clearly this court unless code,” SmithKline,
inconsistent with the 1354, 1356.
482 A.2d at Co., at
Tool Sales & Service 536 Pa. (citations omitted). at
637 A.2d This adopt princi-
Court should the well-settled above, and,
ples accordingly, enunciated substituting
should refrain from its discre- expertise for the
this case. The Department applied for- recomputing
mula for Bank’s North *2 Kawalec, III, Hill, NJ, Cherry F.
Walter petitioner. Gard, Attorney Deputy Karen M. Sr. General, Harrisburg, respondent. PELLEGRINI, Judge, and BEFORE: LEADBETTER, Judge, and JIULIANTE, Judge. Senior BY PELLEGRINI. Judge OPINION (Seller) DaimlerChrysler Corporation of two orders appeals portions from denying its Revenue Board of Finance and tax requests for of sales refunds repur- various vehicles it was under from customers chase dissatisfied Law Lemon Pennsylvania Automobile (Lemon Law).1 has been consolidated This case have similar separate appeals two which Both appeal. facts and the issue on same (279 F.R.2004, cases F.R.2004 and Seller, a manufacturer spectively) involve vehicles, Chrysler/Dodge who and seller of from individuals repurchased its vehicles Pennsylvania’s Law. Under Lemon of a vehicle purchaser the Lemon may elect to a refund for a vehicle receive repaired despite repeated be cannot ed, §§ 1. Act of March P.L. as amend- 1951-1963.
H9 $26,630.86, attempts.2 requested the manufacturer provide full must with the only granted a refund Appeals Board purchase price, including sales within $5,849.14 totaling plus Again, interest. turn, days of the election. In the man- denied the refund *3 ufacturer then requests Depart- from the $20,781.72 for 15 transactions where the ment of Revenue a refund of the sales tax paid the tax more original purchaser sales paid that was to the Commonwealth.3 27, 2003, years than three before October here,
In both cases petitioned petition Seller the the date Seller filed the refund Appeals for a refund of the sales Appeals. with the Board of tax it repurchased on vehicles from deci- appeal Seller filed both the Lemon Law. In the first appeal, sions with the Board of Finance and Reve- F.R.2004, $64,689.95 a refund of was re- (Board) ap- nue which consolidated the quested, but the Board of issued a peals disposition. argued before Seller granting decision and order a refund of the Board that its due were rights $21,103.40 plus interest. The refund con- enforcing violated $20,878.39 of totaling sisted state tax filing request, of limitations for a refund local tax of Pursuant to Section $225.02. placed posi- and it in the Seller anomalous 3003.1(a) Code, of the Tax 72 P.S. of having the statute of limitation on 10003.1(a), § the Board Appeals denied right expire its to refund before the $27,807.86 a refund of for 21 transactions request refund even accrued.4 original purchaser paid where the the sales Seller also contended that the doctrine of tax more than three before Febru- equitable tolling5 ary would ameliorate the date Seller filed re- the fund petition problem by allowing with the Board the commencement of Appeals. Similarly, under 468 F.R. 200 begin Seller the statute of limitations to on the (which provides: 2.Section 5 of ing warranty may vary the Lemon Law the term of the sale). from sale to See Section 4 of the Lem- repair If the manufacturer fails to or cor- 1954(a). § 73 P.S. nonconformity rect a after reasonable attempts, number of the manufacturer 3. Code Section 252 of Tax Reform of 1971 shall, option purchaser, at the re- (Tax Code), Act of March P.L. place comparable the motor vehicle with a origi- § purchaser PS. allows the or the equal motor vehicle accept value or payer’s assignee, nal in this case—Seller—to purchaser turn the vehicle petition paid. for a refund of the tax purchaser purchaser full price price, including or lease all collateral brief, explained 4. In the Commonwealth's charges less a reasonable allowance for the that such a situation was a rare instance: purchaser’s exceeding use of the vehicle not "Twenty-two repurchases year occurred one per pur- 10 cents mile drive or 10% expired. period or more before limitation vehicle, price price chase or lease Eight repurchases eight occurred between whichever is less ... event the con- expiration and eleven months before the refund, payment sumer elects a shall be period. three the limitation Two occurred (Em- days made within 30 such election. expiration months before the of the limitation added.) phasis period. Only repurchases three occurred af- § 73 P.S. 1955. As to when a expired.” ter the limitations had may request (Commonwealth’s 3.) repurchase the seller to a vehicle brief at nt. "lemon,” aas that has to be after a made equitable tolling "reasonable number of at- [unsuccessful] is a statute The doctrine of tempts” party, through are made the seller to correct of limitations when a no fault own, year following same defect within the in a first is unable to assert its 12,000 delivery, timely the first miles use or dur- manner. asking Although us to read the request for the refund was Seller date when the pari materia with the Tax Lemon Law made.6 special exception make a for it Code and and, car presumably, other manufacturers Board issued a decision hold The has the misfortune of because it sometimes ing pursuant to the Tax being able to file for refunds always 10003.1(a), § Seller was to file its prescribed statutorily period, within the petition pay within three of actual in the Lemon Law that there is petitions ment of the and it filed its abeyance requirement or holds tolls statutory limita beyond refunds time years of filed within three that a refund be filing. explained tion for The Board that a *4 tax. Section payment of sales years three refund was to be within 3003.1(a) Code, Tax actually paid the date that the tax was 10003.1(a), ap- § tax statute general is a initially, the vehicle to the Commonwealth taxpayers, a plying spectrum to broad a not the date that Seller was entitled to who purpose taxpayers is to allow whose refund, i.e., the date a reimbursement was erroneously overpay taxes to obtain appeal by This due to the consumer. Sell funds, e.g., overpayment of business er have consolidated both followed. We provides: taxes. It appeals disposition as well.7 (a) by Depart- For a tax collected Revenue, taxpayer who has ment of a continues to maintain that Seller tax, to actually paid penalty interest or statute of limitations under or agent or to an the Commonwealth 3003.1(a) of the Tax Code violates Section author- of the Commonwealth licensee given process being due because instead may petition the ized to collect taxes refund, full'years petition three to for a refund or of Revenue for during the amount of time which it has to tax, penalty. or credit of the interest petition significantly statute, a refund would be provided Except as otherwise to petition com must be made reduced or some cases eliminated a for refund years of department three it within pleted, thereby depriving property tax, interest or payment of the actual admits that it rights. The Commonwealth added.) penalty. (Emphasis quite possible is would be de Seller requesting receiving some prived is a provision whether this Als to refunds, three-year statutory limi in Miller v. Stroud repose, statute of Township as it is a statute of Sewer period Township tation is absolute and Stroud (Pa.Cmwlth. 749, 752 Authority, 804 A.2d repose. clause, al- purpose the amount pointed of this out that under the Lemon Seller property to a re- tangible personal if a elected receive lowed reason refund, placement a cash vehicle instead of exchange be actually trade or shall taken in vehicle the sales tax on the returned property.” such considered the value of fully regardless of would creditable when be original returned after the the vehicle was reviewing a decision of the 7. "When Nothing purchase made. in the Lemon was Revenue, Court has the Finance Law, however, allegation. supports Seller's because, although brought discretion broadest Rather, statement, support of this Seller appellate jurisdiction, this court our within 201(g)(2) of the Tax cites Section a essentially performs function of trial 7201(g)(2), provides: § which “There P.S. Bank v. Com- Union National court.” First purchase price the shall be deducted from the Pennsylvania, 867 A.2d monwealth property any tangible personal actu- value of (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). exchange n. 11 ally trade in lieu of the taken in part purchase price. For whole or 2002), explained rily we of time after a difference between determined repose a statute of and a statute of limita- event,” is, definitely a de- established tions: amount of time in which one has finitive The difference between of re- statutes request for a refund —three file
pose and statutes of limitations is that
years
payment
within the actual
statutes of
procedural-
are
limitation^]
pro-
it
Due
repose.
recovery
devices which bar
on a viable
taxpayers
cess does not demand that all
action,
repose
cause of
where statutes of
get a full three
to file for
they
are substantive in nature because
or that
have three
from dis-
extinguish a
pre-
cause of action and
covery
or a
to file for a refund or
addition,
clude its revival.
statutes of
necessarily
are
able to receive a refund at
begin to run from the time
limitation[s]
all.8
repose,
Because
is a statute of
injurious
of an
discovery
occurrence or
taxpayers’
rights
to a refund are extin-
same,
repose
whereas statutes of
guished
quashed,
and once
due
statutorily
peri-
run for a
determined
demands
because there are no
definitely
od of time after a
estab-
See also Ciccarelli
rights
“process.”9
independent
injuri-
lished event
of an
*5
Mines,
Ltd.,
Carey
discovery
Canadian
ous occurrence
of the
757 F.2d
same.
(3rd Cir.1985).10 Therefore,
548
Seller’s
subject
process rights
eq-
due
are not
to
Applying
principles
the above
to
pres-
the
ent
it prescribes
because
a “statuto-
tolling
suggests.
uitable
as Seller
352,
example, DaimlerChrysler
8. For
justification.”
is not enti-
Id. at
soned but First, I points. do
ly emphasize two that statutes opinion suggest
read this
delay. They have come
and unavoidable
of access—a
is a reasonable
*6
judicial pro-
through the
opportunity
heard.
into
law
[Cita-
to be
reasonable
They repre-
through legislation.
but
Supreme
has
cess
As the
Court
omitted.]
tions
privilege to
public policy
about the
sent
noted:
litigate.
has never been re-
Their shelter
which "are found
Statutes of limitations
garded
called a "fundamen-
enlightened
as what now is
approved
systems of
in all
right
called a "natu-
or what used to be
Carpenter, 101 U.S.
tal”
jurisprudence,” Woodv.
may,
135,
He
[(11 Otto)]
right of the individual.
ral”
807]
139
L.Ed.
[25
course,
policy
protection
have the
legislative judgment
"represent
pervasive
exists,
history
pleas
adversary
while it
unjust
put the
to fail to
by
good only
them to be
specified peri-
limitation shows
within a
on notice to defend
subject
grace
to a rela-
legislative
and to be
free of
time and that the
to be
od of
legislative
tively large degree
control.
prevail over
in time comes to
stale claims
[Citation omitted.]
Railroad Te-
prosecute them.”
upheld
recently
statutes
courts
have
Railway Express Agency, 321
Other
legraphers v.
586,
extinguish
before
claims
L.Ed.
that in effect
S.Ct.
88
[64
U.S.
349
periods
statutory
are in
(1944).
Because
statutes
accrue.
These enactments are
788]
arbitrary,
to initiate
affording plaintiffs
sense
although
some
repose; and
occasionally expires
a claimant
before
suit
legislature deems a reasonable
what
see,
claims,
any injury,
e.g.,
Jewson
they protect
has sustained
present their
time to
Clinic,
(8th
Mayo
411
Cir.
having
691 F.2d
the courts from
defendants and
1982);
Marlin Firearms
see also Dincher v.
the search
deal with cases in which
Co.,
(2d
1952), or
822-23
Cir.
198 F.2d
seriously impaired
the loss
may be
truth
evidence,
he has sustained
the claimant knows
disappear-
before
death or
whether
Jewson,
411;
memories,
witnesses,
F.2d at
injury,
e.g.,
disap-
see
fading
ance of
Gulesian,
(1st
documents,
429 F.2d
Clark v.
[Ci-
pearance of
or otherwise.
Cir.1970),
denied, 400 U.S.
rt.
omitted.]
tations
ce
(1971). Such a