690 A.2d 460 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1996
The question presented in this case is whether a purchaser of petroleum products is a "tax payer" statutorily authorized to appeal an assessment of Connecticut's sale of petroleum products gross earnings tax (petroleum sales tax) by General Statutes §
The issue just described arises on a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint. For purposes of this decision, the allegations in the complaint will be assumed to be true. The plaintiff is a purchaser of a petroleum product known as number two heating oil. He purchases his oil from one Frederick Mott. Mott, who is not a party to the action, pays the petroleum sales tax on the oil that he sells to the plaintiff. This tax, itemized as a separate charge, is passed on to the purchaser. The plaintiff has paid these charges. The gist of his complaint is that the oil that he is purchasing is, in fact, tax exempt pursuant to General Statutes §
The problem that must initially be addressed is whether this court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's complaint. The problem boils down to this. The sole jurisdictional basis that the plaintiff asserts for his complaint is §
In order to analyze this issue, it is necessary to consider the nature of the petroleum sales tax. The petroleum sales tax imposes "a gross earnings tax as part of the operating overhead costs of Connecticut producers *409
and distributors of petroleum products." Texaco Refining Marketing Co. v. Commissioner,
In enacting the petroleum sales tax, the legislature underlined its intention with an explicit statement of purpose. General Statutes §
Section
The plaintiff responds to this analysis by citing the laws of economics. It is not realistic, he points out, to expect sellers of petroleum products to simply absorb the tax. Section
In a case involving a somewhat analogous set of facts, the supreme court of North Dakota explained this distinction: "In a loose sense it may be said that most taxes are paid by the consumer. Certainly the cost to the consumer of many commodities has been greatly increased by the imposition of taxes upon manufacturers and merchants, but that fact does not make the consumer legally the payer of those taxes. He buys an article of merchandise for a price fixed by the seller. That price may include an apportionment of a dozen taxes or it may include none. There is no obligation on the buyer's part to pay the tax and in the event the tax is not paid the tax collecting authority has no power to collect it from him. He clearly is not a payer of the tax in the sense that entitles him to maintain an action to enjoin its collection." King v. Baker,
Because the judicial task here is to construe a term used in a tax statute, the use of the same term in other statutes implementing the same tax is significant. Statutes implementing the same tax are in pari materia and should be construed together to carry out the intent of the legislature. See Tax Commissioner v. Estate ofBissell,
The term "taxpayer" is also used repeatedly in General Statutes §
"Appeals to courts from administrative agencies exist only under statutory authority. . . . A statutory right to appeal may be taken advantage of only by strict compliance with the statutory provisions by which it is created." (Citations omitted.) Norwich Land Co. v.Public Utilities Commission,
The motion to dismiss is granted.