Smith International, Inc. v. Secretary of Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana ( 2020 )

STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST CIRCUIT
2018 CA 1640
SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC.
VERSUS
KIMBERLY ROBINSON, SECRETARY,
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Judgment Rendered:
JAN 0 9 2020
On Appeal from the Louisiana Board of Tax Appeals
State of Louisiana
Docket No. 10498
Board of Tax Appeals Members Presiding:
Judge Anthony J. " Tony" Graphia ( ret.), Chairman;
Cade R. Cole, Vice -Chairman; and Frances " Jay" Lobrano
Miranda Y. Scroggins Counsel for Defendant/ Appellant
Antonio Ferachi Kimberly Robinson, Secretary,
Debra Morris Louisiana Department of Revenue
Brian DeJean
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Robert S. Angelico Counsel for Plaintiff/ Appellee
Cheryl M. Kornick Smith International, Inc.
Jeffrey P. Birdsong
New Orleans, Louisiana
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C. J., McCLENDON, HIGGINBOTHAM, CRAIN',
AND LANIER JJ.
Justice Will Crain is serving as judge ad hoc by special appointment of the Louisiana Supreme Court.
CJ Ot
McCLENDON, 3.
The defendant, the Louisiana Department of Revenue, through its Secretary,
Kimberly Robinson ( the Department), appeals a judgment of the Louisiana Board of Tax
Appeals ( the Board) that denied its exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
determined that no penalties were due from the taxpayer plaintiff, Smith International,
Inc. ( Smith International). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Smith International is engaged in the oil and gas equipment and services
business in the State of Louisiana. Smith International timely filed its Louisiana
corporate income and franchise tax returns for the 2008 through 2010 tax periods.
Payment was submitted with the returns. Subsequently, the Department conducted an
audit and determined that additional income and franchise taxes were due. Smith
International received a Notice of Assessment, dated December 22, 2016, assessing
additional corporate income and franchise tax for the tax period of January 1, 2008,
through December 31, 2010. The Department also assessed interest and penalties. Z
Smith International submitted payment for the additional income and franchise tax, as
well as the interest, as shown on the assessment. However, Smith International did not
submit payment for the penalties.
Thereafter, Smith International filed a timely appeal with the Board, disputing
the penalty portion of the assessment. In response, the Department filed an exception
raising the objection of lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which was referred to a
hearing on the merits.
Following the hearing, the Board signed a judgment on April 10, 2018, denying
the Department's exception of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Board' s judgment
also found that Smith International was not liable for the penalties assessed by the
Department. The Department appealed the Board' s judgment to this
2 The Department assessed penalties in the amount of $ 93, 873. 45 for the corporate franchise tax and
178, 346. 85 for the corporate income tax.
2
court,3 and assigns the following as error:
1. The Board erred by denying the lack of subject matter jurisdiction exception
filed by the Department; and
2. The Board erred by failing to hold Smith International liable for the late
payment penalty assessed under LSA- R. S. 47: 1602.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The legislature created the Board to act as an appeal board to hear and decide
disputes between a taxpayer and the State. See LSA- R. S. 47: 1401. 4 The Board acts as
a trial court in finding facts and applying the law. St. Martin v. State, 09- 0935 ( La.
12/ 1/ 09), 25 So. 3d 736, 740. Judicial review of a decision of the Board must be
rendered upon the record before the Board and is limited to facts on the record and
questions of law. See Barfield v. Bolotte, 15- 0847 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 12/ 23/ 15), 185
So. 3d 781, 785, writ denied, 16- 0307 ( La. 5/ 13/ 16), 191 So. 3d 1058.
The Board' s findings of fact should be accepted where there is substantial
evidence in the record to support them and should not be set aside unless they are
manifestly erroneous in view of the evidence in the entire record. Additionally, when
the assignments of error reflect that the main issue involves a purely legal question
regarding the proper interpretation of a statute, our review is de novo in the sense that
we give no deference to the factual findings or legal conclusions of the tribunals below.
We are free to make our own determinations of the correct legal meaning of the
appropriate statutes and render judgment on the record. Barfield, 185 So. 3d at 785.
3 Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1434 and 47: 1435 previously provided that judicial review of decisions of
the Board was vested with the district court.
However, pursuant to 2014 La. Acts, No. 198, § 1, eff. July
1, 2014, and subsequent amendments, jurisdiction for judicial review of decisions of the Board is now
vested solely with the appellate courts. Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1435A provides:
The courts of appeal shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review the decisions or
judgments of the board, and the judgment of any such court shall be subject to further
review in accordance with the law relating to civil matters.
4 Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1401 currently provides:
In order to provide a board that will act as an appeal board to hear and decide, at a
minimum of expense to the taxpayer, questions of law and fact arising from disputes or
controversies between a taxpayer and any collector of the State of Louisiana in the
enforcement of any tax, excise, license, permit or any other tax, fee, penalty, receipt or
other law administered by a collector, and to exercise other jurisdiction as provided by
law, including jurisdiction as provided for in the Uniform Local Sales Tax Code, the Board
of Tax Appeals, hereinafter referred to as the " board", is created as an independent
agency in the Department of State Civil Service, and for the purposes of this Chapter.
The Local Tax Division is created as an independent agency and authority within the
board for the purposes of exercising jurisdiction over disputes involving local collectors.
Q
If the Board has correctly applied the law and adhered to correct procedural standards,
its judgment should be affirmed absent a clearly erroneous finding of fact. St. Martin,
25 So. 3d at 740.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
In interpreting statutes, we begin with the well- settled premise that taxing
statutes must be strictly construed against the taxing authority, and where a tax statute
is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, the construction favorable to
the taxpayer is adopted. Cleco Evangeline, LLC v. Louisiana Tax Com' n, 01- 0561
La. App. 1 Cir. 6/ 22/ 01), 808 So. 2d 740, 744, affd, 01- 2162 ( La. 4/ 3/ 02), 813 So. 2d
351.
When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd
consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be
made in search of the intent of the legislature. LSA- C. C. art. 9. This principle applies to
tax statutes. Cleco Evangeline, 808 So. 2d at 744. It is a recognized rule of statutory
construction that the court must give the words of a law their generally prevailing
meaning ( except that words which are words of art or technical terms must be given
their technical meaning). LSA- C. C. art. 11. Further, when the words of a law are
ambiguous, their meaning must be sought by examining the context in which they
occur and the text of the law as a whole. LSA- C. C. art. 12. When the language is
susceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that
best conforms to the purpose of the law. LSA- C. C. art. 10.
It is presumed that every word, sentence, or provision in the law was intended
to serve some useful purpose; that some effect is to be given to each such provision;
and that no unnecessary words or provisions were used. The meaning of a statute is to
be interpreted by looking to all the sections taken together so that no section, clause,
sentence or word becomes superfluous or meaningless. Cleco Evangeline, 808 So. 2d
at 744.
Finally, if a statute is not clear on its face, the meaning must be determined.
Statutory interpretation is the province of the judiciary. The paramount consideration in
El
interpreting a statute is ascertaining the legislature' s intent and the reasons that
prompted the legislature to enact the law. Cleco Evangeline, 808 So. 2d at 744.
DISCUSSION
In the instant matter, the Department first contends that the Board lacked
jurisdiction over the penalty issue. It asserts that the Board' s jurisdiction for penalties
is limited to the waiver of penalties. The Department also argues that the Board lacked
jurisdiction to " redetermine" the assessment of penalties where the taxpayer agreed
with the tax and interest found to be due following an audit. Secondly, the Department
argues that the penalties were lawfully imposed and are due, as Smith International did
not follow the taxing laws when filing its returns and remitting payments. In
opposition,
Smith International maintains that the Board correctly found that the
imposition of the penalties in the Notice of Assessment was contrary to law because the
penalty provisions are not applicable.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1407 provides, in pertinent part:
The jurisdiction of the board shall extend to the following:
1) All matters relating to appeals for the redetermination of assessments,
or for the determination of overpayments, or payment under protest
petitions, as provided in R. S. 47: 1431 through 1438.
2) All matters relating to the waiver of penalties, as provided in R. S.
47: 1451.
The Department first argues that, while the legislature has granted jurisdiction to
the Board as to all matters relating to an appeal for the redetermination of
assessments, with regard to penalties, the legislature specifically limited the Board' s
5
jurisdiction relating to the waiver of penalties as set out by LSA- R. S. 47: 1451. While
Smith International concedes that the Board has no subject matter jurisdiction over the
Department' s determinations regarding the waiver of a properly applied penalty, it
5 During the taxable years in question, LSA- R. S. 47: 1451 provided:
Whenever the collector determines to waive or remit the whole or any part of the
penalty provided for failure to file any return at the time it became due, the collector's
determination thereon, together with the taxpayer's affidavit stating the cause of his
delay in filing, shall be submitted to the board for review. If the board finds that the
penalty may properly be waived or remitted pursuant to R. S. 47: 1566, it shall approve
the action of the collector. Otherwise the board shall reject the proposal to waive or
remit, and it shall then be mandatory upon the collector to assess and collect the
penalty.
5
argues that this matter does not involve a penalty waiver. Rather, Smith International
maintains that the statutory penalties were improperly imposed in this matter and do
not apply at all. Therefore, it contends, the Board has jurisdiction over claims to correct
an assessment because the Department incorrectly applied the law.
In its reasons for judgment, the Board concluded:
The [ Department] filed an Exception of Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction which was referred to the merits. The basis of the
Department' s] Exception is that the Board does not have jurisdiction to
waive the penalties assessed. However, [ Smith International] is not
requesting a waiver of penalties. Rather, [ Smith International' s] petition
alleges that the assessed penalties are not due. R. S. 47: 1407( 1) gives the
Board jurisdiction over all matters relating to appeals for the
redetermination of The relief prayed for is therefore
assessments.
properly pled and within the [ B] oard' s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the
Department' s] Exception of Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction will be
overruled.
Upon our review of the record before us, we find that this matter involves the
redetermination of an assessment under LSA- R. S. 47: 1407( 1). Smith International did
not seek a waiver of penalties, praying in its petition that the Board " determine that the
assessment of Louisiana franchise and corporate income tax penalties is erroneous and
illegal." Therefore, we agree with the Board that it had jurisdiction to hear the appeal
of the assessment of penalties. See Consolidated Companies, Inc. v. State Dept.
of Revenue and Taxation, 572 So. 2d 169, 170 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 1990), writ denied,
573 So. 2d 1114 ( La. 1991) (" The Board is authorized to act on a taxpayer' s appeal for a
redetermination of an assessment. This includes the assessment of either a tax or
penalty."); Hayden M. Reilly, Petitioner v. Kimberly L. Robinson Secretary,
Department of Revenue, State of Louisiana, Respondent, La. Bd. Tax.App.,
Docket No. 9712B ( 9/ 13/ 16), 2016 WL 8853739 (" The Taxpayer' s petition does not
request a waiver of penalties. The petition prays that the assessment is erroneous and
should be vacated and set aside. La. R. S. 47: 1407( 1) gives the Board jurisdiction over
all matters relating to appeals for the redetermination of assessments. The relief prayed
for is properly pled and within the [ B] oard' s jurisdiction."); Lanasa Family Trust,
Petitioner v. Tim Barfield, Secretary, Department of Revenue, State of
Louisiana, Respondent, La. Bd. Tax.App., Docket No. 9327C ( 5/ 12/ 16), 2016 WL
8540978 ('' The Board is not considering whether to waive the penalties and interest
because it has no jurisdiction to do so. The inquiry is whether the interest and
penalties were owed."). We now turn to the merits.
The Penalties
The Department originally assessed three separate penalties to Smith
International. 6 However, the late payment penalty is the only penalty at issue in this
appeal.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1602, entitled " Penalty for failure to make a timely
return," provided during the tax years at issue, in pertinent part:
A. When any taxpayer fails to make and file any return required to be
made under the provisions of this Subtitle before the time that the return
becomes delinquent or when any taxpayer fails to timely remit to the
secretary of the Department of Revenue the total amount of tax that
is due on a return which he has filed, there shall be imposed, in
addition to any other penalties provided, a specific penalty to be added to
the tax.
1)
In the case of a failure to file a tax return or of the filing of a return
after the return becomes delinquent, the specific penalty shall be five
percent of the total tax due on the return if the failure or delinquency is
for not more than thirty days, with an additional five percent for each
additional thirty days or fraction thereof during which the failure or
delinquency continues, not to exceed twenty-five percent of the tax in the
aggregate.
2)( a) ... Uln the case of the filing of a return without remittance of the
full amount due, the specific penalty shall be five percent of the
unremitted tax if the failure to remit continues for not more than thirty
days, with an additional five percent for each additional thirty days or
fraction during which the failure to remit continues. The penalty imposed
by this Paragraph for each thirty -day period shall be calculated only on the
additional amount due from the taxpayer after the deduction of payments
timely submitted, or submitted during any preceding thirty -day period
when:
i)
At least ninety percent of the total tax due on the return is not
previously paid on or before the due date of the return.
6 The Department had assessed a penalty pursuant to LSA- R. S. 47: 1604. 1C, which currently provides for
a penalty to a taxpayer for understating tax liability by twenty-five percent or more. Prior to the hearing
on the merits, the parties entered into several joint stipulations, including one where the Department
chose not to pursue this penalty:
The Department has determined that it will remove, and will not pursue the penalty set
forth in [ LSA- R. S. 47: 11604. 1( C) in the Notice of Assessment for the Tax Periods at issue
in this matter.
The Department had also assessed Smith International a negligence penalty pursuant to LSA- R. S.
47: 1604. 1A.Before its amendment in 2015, LSA- R. S. 47: 1604. 1 required a showing of willful negligence
or intentional disregard of rules and regulations. The Board found no showing that Smith International
met the requirements of LSA- R. S. 47: 1604. 1 as it existed during the tax periods at issue herein. Given
that the Department did not assign as error, or brief on appeal, the Board' s failure to hold Smith
International liable for the negligence penalty, this issue is not before us on appeal. See Rule 2- 12. 4,
Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.
7
ii) The return and payments are not received within the time prescribed
determined with regard to any extension of time.
b) The penalty provided by this Paragraph shall not be imposed for any
thirty -day period for which the penalty provided by Paragraph ( 1) is due.
c) The penalties provided for by Paragraph ( 1) of this Subsection and this
Paragraph shall not be imposed for more than five thirty -day periods in
total for each tax return required to be filed.
Emphasis added.)
Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1602 is found in Chapter 18, Administrative
Provisions, of Subtitle II of Title 47 on Revenue and Taxation. Part IV of Chapter 18
provides for Interest and Penalties. Among the penalties authorized, Part IV, provides
for a penalty for failure to make a timely return, LSA- R.S. 47: 1602; a penalty for false
or fraudulent return, LSA- R. S. 47: 1604;' a negligence penalty, LSA- R. S. 47: 1604. 1;$ an
Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1604 provides for a mandatory penalty for a false or fraudulent return:
When the taxpayer files a return that is false or fraudulent or grossly incorrect and the
circumstances indicate that the taxpayer had intent to defraud the State of Louisiana of
any tax due under this Sub -title, there shall be imposed, in addition to any other
penalties provided, a specific penalty of fifty per centum ( 50%) of the tax found to be
due. This specific penalty shall be an obligation to be collected and accounted for in the
same manner as if it were a part of the tax due, and can be enforced either in a separate
action or in the same action for the collection of the tax.
B Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1604. 1 provided a mandatory penalty during the tax years in question:
If any taxpayer fails to make any return required by this Sub -title or makes an incorrect
return, and the circumstances indicate wilful negligence or intentional disregard of rules
and regulations, but no intent to defraud, there shall be imposed, in addition to any other
penalties provided, a specific penalty of 5% of the tax or deficiency found to be due, or
ten dollars, whichever is the greater. This specific penalty shall be an obligation to be
collected and accounted for in the same manner as if it were a part of the tax due, and
can be enforced either in a separate action or in the same action for the collection of the
tax.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1604. 1 was amended by Acts 2015, No. 128, § 1, eff. July 1, 2015, and
now provides for a discretionary penalty:
A. Finding of negligence. For negligent failure to comply with any provisions of this
Part or any rules and regulations of the department, when the secretary finds that a
taxpayer did not have willful intent to defraud the state, the secretary may assess a
penalty equal to ten percent of the tax deficiency found to be due as a result of the
taxpayer' s negligence.
B. Large individual income tax deficiency. In the case of individual income tax, if a
taxpayer understates tax table income, by any means, by an amount equal to twenty-five
percent or more of adjusted gross income or has otherwise demonstrated a willful intent
to disregard the tax laws of this state, the secretary may assess a penalty equal to
twenty percent of the deficiency. However, in the case of individual income tax, if a
taxpayer understates tax table income by an amount equal to twenty-five percent or
more of adjusted gross income but the secretary finds that the taxpayer did not have
willful intent to disregard the tax laws of this state, the secretary may assess a penalty of
fifteen percent of the deficiency.
C. Other large tax deficiency. In the case of a tax other than individual income tax, if
a taxpayer understates tax liability by twenty-five percent or more, or has otherwise
demonstrated a willful intent to disregard the tax laws of this state, the secretary may
insufficient funds check or electronic debit in payment of taxes penalty, LSA- R. S.
47: 1604. 2; and an examination and hearing costs penalty, LSA- R. S. 47: 1605.
In its appeal, the Department argues that LSA- R. S. 47: 1602A requires the
imposition of the late payment penalty when the taxpayer fails to timely remit the total
tax amount found to be due. The Department contends that Smith International did
not submit the correct amount of tax due at the time it was due, as the Department
later determined that additional taxes were owed. However, Smith International
maintains that it did timely remit to the Department the total amount of tax that was
due as reflected on the return it filed as required by the statute and, as such, no late
payment penalty is due. Therefore, the issue before us is the proper interpretation of
LSA- R.S. 47: 1602 and whether a penalty is due when a taxpayer makes a timely return
and remits payment as shown on the return, but fails to timely remit payment for the
amount that is ultimately determined to be due.
Looking at the penalty statutes in pari materia and mindful of the rules of
statutory interpretation, we find that the legislature's intent in providing for the penalty
found in LSA- R. S. 47: 1602A was to address a taxpayer' s failure to make a timely return
and remit payment with said return, rather than a taxpayer's failure to make a correct
return. 9 By the plain language of the statute, a late payment penalty is due when 1) a
taxpayer fails to make and file a return " before the time that the return becomes
assess a penalty equal to twenty percent of the deficiency. However, in the case of a tax
other than individual income tax, if a taxpayer understates tax liability by twenty-five
percent or more, but the secretary finds that the taxpayer did not have willful intent to
disregard the tax laws of this state, the secretary may assess a penalty of fifteen percent
of the deficiency.
D. For purposes of this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings
unless the context clearly indicates otherwise:
1) `` Adjusted gross income" means gross income as defined in Section 62 of the Internal
Revenue Code.
2) " Willful" means voluntarily and intentionally acting in violation of the tax laws of this
state. The secretary shall use this definition of " willful" when determining whether a
penalty shall be imposed for the willful intent to defraud this state or willful intent to
disregard the tax laws of this state.
9 As previously noted, the title of LSA- R. S. 47: 1602 is " Penalty for failure to make a timely return."
While we recognize that the title of a statute is not dispositive of its content, it is indicative of legislative
intent. See Anderson v. Ochsner Health System, 13- 2970 ( La. 7/ 1/ 14), 172 So. 3d 579, 581 (" When
doubt exists as to the proper interpretation of a statute, the title or preamble may be used to determine
legislative intent.").
9
delinquent," or 2) the taxpayer fails to timely remit to the Department " the total
amount of tax that is due on a return which he has filed."
Turning now to the facts of the matter before us, it is undisputed that Smith
International timely filed its tax returns for the years 2008 through 2010. Therefore,
the first basis for the imposition of a late payment penalty on the taxpayer does not
apply. It is also undisputed that Smith International remitted the amount that was
reflected as due on the returns that it filed. i0 In its reasons, the Board stated that
t] he Taxpayer has complied with the requirements of Section 1602." We agree."
Based on our de novo review of the record and the clear and plain language of the
statute, Smith International did not fail " to timely remit to the secretary of the
Department of Revenue the total amount of tax that is due on a return which he
has filed" ( Emphasis added). If the legislature intended to mean ' the correct amount"
of the tax due, as argued by the Department, it could have so provided; rather, it chose
to use the phrase, '' the total amount of tax that is due on a return which he has filed."
Under our rules of statutory construction, we find that the Department's argument fails.
Accordingly, the second basis for the imposition of a late payment penalty is also
inapplicable, and Smith International is not subject to a late payment penalty.
Moreover, even were we to find the phrase, " the total amount of tax that is due on a
return which he has filed," to be ambiguous and susceptible of more than one
reasonable interpretation, the construction favorable to the taxpayer must be adopted.
See Cleco Evangeline, 808 So. 2d at 744.
10 By joint stipulation, the parties agreed that Smith International timely remitted the amounts shown to
be due on its tax returns.
11 We disagree with the Department' s argument that LSA- R. S 47: 1602 read in conjunction with LSA- R. S.
47: 1562B requires the imposition of the late payment penalty herein because Smith International did not
Alcorrectly compute" its tax liability. Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1562B provides, in relevant part:
If a return or report made and filed does not correctly compute the liability of the
taxpayer, the secretary shall cause an audit, investigation, or examination, ... to be made
to determine the tax, penalty, and interest due.
Louisiana Revised Statutes 47: 1562 is found under Part III of Chapter 18, regarding Assessment and
Collection Procedures. If a return made and filed does not correctly compute the liability of the taxpayer,
LSA- R. S. 47: 15628 requires that the Department " shall cause an audit, investigation, or examination" to
be made to determine the correct tax, penalty, and interest due. It is not a determination that a tax,
penalty, and interest is due. See Bridges v. Smith, 01- 2166 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 9/ 27/ 02), 832 So. 2d 307,
312, writ denied, 02- 2951 ( La. 2/ 14/ 03), 836 So. 2d 121 (" Louisiana Revised Statute 47: 1562 does not
provide for the actual assessment of the additional taxes; rather, it provides for the determination and
notice of the intent to propose additional taxes due.'.
10
We disagree with the fourth circuit's reasoning in City of New Orleans' Dept.
of Finance v. Touro Infirmary, 04- 0835 ( La. App. 4 Cir. 4/ 27/ 05), 905 So. 2d 314,
328, writ denied, 05- 1251 ( La. 2/ 17/ 06), 924 So. 2d 997, wherein the court stated that
it did not read the language in LSA- R. S. 47: 1602 to mean that no penalty can be
imposed once a return has been filed and the amount that is shown as being due by
the taxpayer has been paid, even if the amount is not the amount actually owed. 12 The
fourth circuit stated that such an interpretation " would lead to absurd consequences.
For example, a taxpayer could file a return, understate the amount of tax owed, pay the
understated amount of tax, and avoid a penalty for the underpayment of taxes." The
fourth circuit continued:
We read the phrase " the total amount of tax that is due on a return
which he [ the taxpayer] has filed" in La. R. S. 47: 1602 to mean the total
amount of tax that is owed by the taxpayer for the period that is
supposed to be covered by the tax return. The amount that is shown on
the return to be due may or may not be the amount actually owed by the
taxpayer.
City of New Orleans' Dept. of Finance, 905 So. 2d at 328. We recognize that the
legislature has specifically provided for other penalties in Part IV, including
circumstances where the taxpayer makes an incorrect return, but there is no intent to
defraud, or where the taxpayer makes a false or fraudulent return. Given that penal
statutes are to be strictly construed, we decline to follow the fourth circuit and go
beyond the clear wording of LSA- R. S. 47: 1602.
We acknowledge that in Enterprise Leasing Co. of New Orleans v. Curtis,
07- 0354 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 11/ 2/ 07), 977 So. 2d 975, 981- 82, writ denied, 07- 2320 ( La.
2/ 1/ 08), 976 So. 2d 719, this court affirmed the trial court's decision finding the
taxpayer liable for penalties under LSA- R. S. 47: 1602. In that case, following an audit,
the taxpayer was assessed sales taxes, interest, and penalties, which were paid under
protest. The taxpayer argued that it timely filed its tax returns and timely paid the
taxes shown as due. The taxpayer contended that it had a good faith belief that a sales
tax for collision damage waivers was not due and did not remit the tax that was
iz See also Rent -A -Center East, Inc. v. Lincoln Parish Sales & Use Tax Com' n, 46, 054 ( La. App. 2
Cir. 3/ 9/ 11), 60 So. 3d 95, 99- 100, writ denied, 11- 0713 ( La. 5/ 20/ 11), 63 So. 3d 985, wherein the second
circuit found that LSA- R. S. 47: 1602A provides that a penalty " shall be imposed" when a taxpayer fails to
timely remit taxes owed.
11
subsequently found to be due. Therefore, the taxpayer asserted that because of its
good faith, the trial court erred in finding it liable for the penalty amounts paid under
protest. The trial court determined that the penalty provisions of LSA- R.S. 47: 1602 did
not hinge on any finding of good faith. This court affirmed, finding no ambiguity in the
language of the taxing statute and finding no exception to the penalty provisions for
good faith error. 13 However, we note that in Enterprise the issue before the court was
whether the taxpayer was acting in good faith, and the specific argument Smith
International has raised in this matter was not made. Therefore, we find Enterprise to
be distinguishable.
CONCLUSION
The April 10, 2018 judgment of the Board of Tax Appeals in favor of the plaintiff,
Smith International, Inc., is affirmed. Costs of this appeal in the amount of $ 188. 00 are
assessed against the defendant, the Louisiana Department of Revenue, through its
Secretary, Kimberly Robinson.
AFFIRMED.
13
While the court in the Enterprise decision recognized a narrow jurisprudential exception to the
assessment of penalties based on a taxpayer' s good faith, the exception has only been applied in limited
circumstances. Enterprise, 977 So. 2d at 982; see also Bridges, Secretary of Dept. of Revenue,
State v. Geoffrey, Inc., 07- 1063 ( La. App. 1 Cir. 2/ 8/ 08), 984 So. 2d 115, 128- 29, writ denied, 08- 0547
La. 4/ 25/ 08), 978 So. 2d 370.
12
SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
FIRST CIRCUIT
KIMBERLY ROBINSON, SECRETARY, NUMBER 2018 CA 1640
LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF
REVENUE
WHIPPLE, C.J., concurring.
Absent clarification of the statutory scheme by the legislature, I concur in the
ultimate result reached by the majority, namely, to affirm the decision of the Board.
Nonetheless, I write separately to note that as written, a taxpayer could significantly
under file" and " under pay" and never incur penalties for doing so as long as the
amount paid " matched" the erroneous or incorrect return filed. In my view, this is
an absurd result, but is warranted until the legislature addresses this issue and
clarifies the law.
SMITH INTERNATIONAL, INC. STATE OF LOUISIANA
VERSUS COURT OF APPEAL
KIMBERLY ROBINSON, FIRST CIRCUIT
SECRETARY, LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE NO. 2018 CA 1640
CRAIN, J., dissenting.
Without commenting on the merits, I believe the majority' s decision conflicts
with this court' s decision in Enterprise Leasing Co., in violation of this court' s rule
requiring that we follow precedent or consider the matter en Banc.