ANR Pipeline Company VS Louisiana Tax Commission, Malcolm B. Price, Jr., Chairman of the Louisiana Tax Commission, Kenneth P. Naquin, Jr. and Russell R. Gaspard, Members of the Louisiana Tax Commission (2008CA1148 Consolidated With 2008CA1154 2008CA1155 2008CA1156 2008CA1157 2008CA1149 2008CA1150 2008CA1151 2008CA1152 200)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2008 CA 1148 ANR PIPEUNE COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION MALCOLM B PRICE JR CHAIRMAN OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND RUSSEL R GASPARD MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITI1 NO 2008 CA 1149 ANR PIPEUNE COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION n f1 It MALCOLM B PRICE JR CHAIRMAN l OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND RUSSEL R GASPARD MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION @ CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1150 TENNESSEE GAS PIPEUNE COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION MALCOLM B PRICE JR CHAIRMAN OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND RUSSEL R GASPARD MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1151 SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION MALCOLM B PRICE JR CHAIRMAN OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND RUSSEL R GASPARD MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1152 ANR PIPEUNE COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION MALCOLM B PRICE JR CHAIRMAN OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND RUSSEL R GASPARD MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1153 TENNESSEE GAS PIPEUNE COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION MALCOLM B PRICE JR OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P CHAIRMAN NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND RUSSEL R GASPARD MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1154 SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION MALCOLM B PRICE JR CHAIRMAN OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND RUSSEL R GASPARD MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION 2 CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1155 SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION MALCOLM B PRICE JR CHAIRMAN OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND RUSSEL R GASPARD MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1156 ANR PIPELINE COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION MALCOLM B PRICE JR CHAIRMAN OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND RUSSEL R GASPARD MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1157 TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION MALCOLM B PRICE JR OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P CHAIRMAN NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND RUSSEL R GASPARD MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1158 TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY VERSUS 3 LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION RUSSEL R GASPARD CHAIRMAN OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND JEWETTE FARLEY MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1159 ANR PIPEUNE COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION RUSSEL R GASPARD CHAIRMAN OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND JEWETTE FARLEY MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1160 SOUTHERN NATURAL GAS COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION RUSSEL R GASPARD CHAIRMAN OF THE KENNETH P NAQUIN JR MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION AND JEWETTE FARLEY MEMBER OF THE LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1161 ANR PIPEUNE COMPANY VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION JERRY J LARPENTER TERREBONNE PARISH TAX COLLECTOR AND GENE P BONVILLAIN TERREBONNE PARISH ASSESSOR CONSOLIDATED WITH NO 2008 CA 1162 ANR PIPEUNE COMPANY 4 VERSUS LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION RICHARD FEWELL OUACHITA PARISH TAX COLLECTOR AND RICH BAILEY OUACHITA PARISH ASSESSOR Judgment rendered OCT 1 7 2008 Appealed from the 19th Judicial District Court in and for the Parish of East Baton Trial Court Nos 468 417 503 466 503 469 Rouge Louisiana cjw 480 159 480 163 480 373 491 530 491 744 491 746 503 470 515 414 515 415 515 416 Honorable TImothy E Kelley HILTON S BELL 555 550 and 557 285 Judge JAMES K IRVIN ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 2ND APPELLANTS ANR PIPELINE COMPANY ANGELA W ADOLPH TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY NEW ORLEANS LA AND SOUTHERN NAlURAL GAS HEATHER LANDRY COMPANY ROBERT D HOFFMAN JR ATTORNEY FOR COVINGTON DEFENDANT APPELLEE LA LOUISIANA TAX COMMISSION BRIAN A EDDINGTON BATON ROUGE ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT5 1Sf APPELLANTS LA GENE P BONVILLIAN ASSESSOR OF TERREBONNE PARISH AND RICH BAILEY ASSESSOR OF OUACHITA PARISH BEFORE PETTIGREW McDONALD AND HUGHES JJ 5 PETTIGREW J In these consolidated to enforce the LEd 2d 38 n 2006 ANR VI court in ANR seeking Pipeline Co v 923 So 2d 81 writ denied s U 127 S O I 157 166 concerning the reassessment of the plaintiffs public the deadlines for refunds of the difference between the amounts The trial court rendered court s intent as set forth in our reasons motion with the trial court a 925 So 2d 547 cert denied paid during the years 1994 through 2003 values filed 2005 1142 La App lOr 9 7 05 La 3 17 06 pipelines and service plaintiffs judgment previously rendered by this Louisiana Tax Com 2005 2372 the cases set forth below we the tax years at issue judgment ruling on August 6 2007 attempting in ANR VI affirm in part and the reassessed The instant reverse in to follow this appeals followed For the part and remand FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Even strangers to this court In fact the history of this the first appeal in this Louisiana Tax Com 2001 0250 denied issued a case was La lodged 2000 2251 n ANR s There have been a parties herein brief review of the warranted and will be helpful ANR Gas in to this litigation were no dates back to October 2000 when In ANR our court 1 Cir App parties 12 22 00 we Pipeline Co 774 So 2d 1261 considered that very v writ appeal and challenge of the ad valorem taxes assessed against its in this matter since that date and the this court and the La with case 790 So 2d 633 4 20 01 ruling concerning public service pipelines litigation the to this court s decision in ANR VI prior numerous underlying other facts of this However due to the procedural history understanding appeals and writ applications case are complex that has the court s well known to both nature brought of this protracted us to this point is analysis that follows Pipeline Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and Southern Natural Company plaintiffs provide natural gas transportation 1 storage and balancing Although plaintiffs in this suit were joined by three other companies lIT Offshore Company LLc High Island Offshore System LLc and Stingray Pipeline Company LLc as plaintiffs in ANR VI ANR Pipeline Company Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and Southern Natural Gas Company are the only plaintiffs involved in these consolidated appeals 6 services in Louisiana and in interstate Regulatory Commission pursuant Plaintiffs each and as tax years at issue liqUid pipeline companies proVided in La 47 1851 K plaintiffs were R S 30 551 A regulated by the Federal Energy Gas Act 15 U S c 9 717 et seq pipelines in Louisiana which publiC service properties under La R S 47 1851 K fifteen were and qualified as 15 percent 25 question plaintiffs paid of the taxes were calculated at assessed values of other definition of The relevant Commission paid under protest portions pipeline publiC were of la R S 47 1851 K Pipeline company transporting oil natural from this state Plaintiffs for publiC service properties of fair market value taxes assessed in excess protest of fifteen against the declaratory judgment and for refunds of fair market value while the taxpayers that fall within the statutory calculated at fifteen percent of fair market 15 follows means any company that is of gas or and which engaged primarily in the business petroleum products or other products within through into is regulated by 1 the Louisiana Public Service Commission the Interstate Commerce Commission or 3 the Federal Power Commission as a 2 natural 717 717w because that s uc gas company under the Federal Natural Gas Act 15 person is engaged in the transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce as defined in the Natural Gas Act M Public service property owned airline or properties means the immovable major movable and other movable used but not otherwise assessed in this state in the operations of each electric company membership corporation electric power company express company gas pipeline company railroad company telegraph company telephone company and water company For each barge line towing and other water transportation company or private car company only the major movable property owned or used but not locally assessed or otherwise assessed in this state in interstate or interparish operations shall be considered as public service property 7 RS argued that the assessed values of their service provide as as by local their ad valorem taxes under twenty five percent 25 pipeline companies assessed were Plaintiffs then filed individual suits of fair market value the however of fair market value while the assessed at twenty five Louisiana Tax Commission and other publiC service companies under La plaintiffs challenged that portion of SpeCifically properties number of intrastate natural gas oil regulated by the Louisiana Public Service Commission percent 15 For each tax year in percent a pipelines of these companies The assessors at 2 to the Natural are 2 M During the of and interstate natural gas transmission classified and taxed are properties own commerce value Plaintiffs asserted that this of the Louisiana Constitution disparate the treatment violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Louisiana and United States Constitutions and the Plaintiffs also Constitution suits alleged uniformity requirement that La commerce clause of the United States R S 47 1851 K is unconstitutional These consolidated for trial were bench trial in early 2005 the trial court rendered declaratory judgment plaintiffs finding that the actions of the Commission in the administration Following in favor of the of Louisiana s a ad valorem tax scheme as it pertained to plaintiffs publiC service pipelines violated the equal protection and due process clauses of the Louisiana and United States The trial court Constitutions 47 1851 K and the Commission require the parish a In ANR VI plaintiffs both as as to no the public service our later than September 20 2005 on pipelines of the fifteen this court affirmed the paid Plaintiffs declaratory judgment rendered the constitutional violations and to the refunds percent for each appealed decision in ANR VI and the reassessment of the regard noted assessors to assess full refund plus interest of the difference between the amounts this decision which resulted in With constitutionality of La R S The trial court further ordered the Commission to issue year and the reassessed amount assessors the the tax years at issue and calculate taxes based of those assessments plaintiffs on and remanded the matter to the Commission with instructions that M plaintiffs for each of 15 pretermitted decision if any that as plaintiffs public to the in favor of remedy involving the parish service pipelines for tax purposes might be issued following reassessment this court follows judgment appealed from mandates that the Commission issue all plaintiffs a full refund plus interest of the difference between the The to amounts year and the reassessed amount no later than within six months following the date of judgment paid for each September 30 2005 The Commission has answered the appeal and prayed that the judgment completion of reassessment to six months following finality of judgment Due to the delays occasioned by this appeal we find that an extension of the deadline for issuance of refunds is warranted Accordingly we hereby amend the judgment to provide that the deadline for completion of reassessment is six months be modified to extend the deadline for from the date the judgment becomes final ANR VI 2005 1142 at 31 923 So 2d at 99 100 8 When the Louisiana our Supreme Court denied plaintiffs writ application in ANR decision therein became final relating to the reassessment of prompting there is deadline provided for some dispute as increase in taxes in other parish to how many record while reassessment resulted in an the parishes a decrease the Commission accomplished within the six month were completed in taxes in some According to the parishes it resulted in COrrectness of the reassessments After to the Commission plaintiffs filed a 4 Shortly after lodging these appeals with motion to enforce court judgment with the trial alleging by failing to timely complete the reassessment and refund process the Commission had lost jurisdiction asserted that court using currently they to conduct any further were 15 a extant in this matter Thus plaintiffs applied to the only fair by the trial market values that are namely the undisputed fair market values previously determined by the parish In response thereto subsequently filed assessors support of the Commission and it did not state proceedings entitled to have their tax assessments calculated assessment ratio The Commission 3 the reassessments number of adverse determinations from the parish Boards of Review plaintiffs appealed the assessments that assessors plaintiffs lodged 359 protests with the various parish Boards of Review challenging the a began parish 3 In response to the reassessments receiving were by the Commission the various assessors it is clear that many in ANR VI of orders plaintiffs properties by Pursuant to the Commission s orders Although a series VI an a petition of intervention opposition to plaintiffs motion to enforce judgment plaintiffs objected to the petition of intervention a cause of action in In the alternative on the grounds that plaintiffs moved that the intervention lthough many parish assessors completed their revaluations notHowever the of Plaintiffs public service properties a significant number did parish assessors assert on appeal that they collectively performed 526 separate reassessments of plaintiffs property and that each assessor with the exception of the assessor for Tangipahoa Parish completed reassessment within the six In brief to this court plaintiffs allege that a month deadline 4 According to the record Commission On June 18 from the correctness appeals 2007 plaintiffs obtained begin on June 19 2007 before the temporary restraining order enjoining the Commission time as plaintiffs receive a full refund of all taxes paid under protest That converted to a preliminary injunction on August 9 2007 conducting the hearings until such temporary restraining order was judgment was appealed to this court under Docket The were scheduled to a No 2007 CA 2282 9 be dismissed were as These matters brought for hearing before the trial With regard to the found that the on untimely going parish case that had had with the motion to enforce judgment court on June 13 2007 of action no cause assessors along objection and the intervention the trial court no cause of action to intervene as the matter was an Therefore the trial already been through adjudication court maintained the exception and dismissed with prejudice the petition of intervention filed by the parish The trial court then heard assessors concerning the motion to enforce court rendered judgment providing IT IS plaintiffs testimony and argument from counsel judgment Thereafter in pertinent part August 6 2007 the trial follows ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the FURTHER ORDERED Motion to Enforce as on Judgment seeking an adjudication that the jurisdiction to continue its conduct the re assessment process including all appeals to the Louisiana Tax Commission expired on September 17 2006 and that the valuations by the Louisiana Tax Commission of plaintiffs publiC service property are to be used for the purpose of determining the amount of refunds of ad valorem property taxes paid under protest is DENIED in part and after all refunds of ad valorem property taxes paid under protest plus interest thereon have been received by the plaintiffs as set forth below the Louisiana Tax Commission may proceed to hear the plaintiffs appeals from the re assessment of their publiC services properties by Parish and C ommission Louisiana Tax s District Assessors IT IS FURTHER ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the to an immediate refund of all ad valorem entitled plaintiffs property taxes paid under protest as of September 17 2006 and the Louisiana Tax Commission shall immediately cause to issue to plaintiffs full refunds of all ad valorem property taxes paid by plaintiffs under protest for the tax years 1994 through 2003 for ANR Pipeline Company and for the tax years 2000 through 2003 Orleans Parish 2001 through 2004 for Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company and Southern Natural Gas Company plus interest thereon as provided by law were IT FURTHER IS ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that in that if the Judgment is GRANTED in part service property was not completed by re plaintiffs publiC 17 2006 assessors are barred from re assessing plaintiffs September public service property and shall not participate in any further proceedings plaintiffs Motion to Enforce assessment of in connection therewith such Assessors and the Louisiana Tax plaintiffs publiC service property for the and the tax years 1994 through 2003 Orleans Parish 2001 through 2004 payment of refunds as ordered above shall be full and final Commission shall not It is from this specifications of re assess judgment that the assessors error 10 appealed assigning the following The trial court erred in full refund of all ad valorem 1 holding The trial court erred in ordered above shall be full to and immediately that holding 2 was not were entitled to a property taxes paid under protest and in ordering the Louisiana Tax Commission plaintiffs full refunds of such taxes reassessment plaintiffs that the final to issue to cause the payment of refunds as each instance in which in completed by September 17 2006 and in holding that any Assessor who failed to complete reassessment by that deadline is barred from re assessing plaintiffs public service property and shall not participate in any further The trial court erred in 3 holding from the plaintiffs appeals hear the in connection therewith proceedings that the Tax Commission could not reassessment of their public service properties by Assessors until after the plaintiff pipelines had received refund of taxes paid under protest Plaintiffs answered the assessors appeal presenting a the following issues for full our review and consideration Whether the trial court erred in failing to enforce this Court s Judgment that required all proceedings including appeals and the issuance of refunds of taxes paid under protest be completed on or 1 September before 17 2006 Whether the trial court erred in creating a two step process in which the ultimate outcome could be the imposition of additional taxes and ignoring this Court s time limits rather than ordering the immediate and unconditional payment of full refunds plus interest 2 Whether the trial court 3 the properly denied parish assessors intervention 4 Whether remaining the parish assessors have matters addressed in the underlying In response to Lack Of were The assessors seeking declaratory relief that specifically prayed judgment appealed and reassessment plaintiffs appellees 5 proceedings exception us we was a find to appeal Declinatory Exception Of arguing that Appeal provide that plaintiffs t he scope request that the of the revaluation is to determine the amount of the refund due to imposed as a result thereof parties respective arguments concerning the objection of lack no the outside the scope of this appeal and that additional taxes may not be and the motion to strike record before filed for the dismissal of from be modified to We have reviewed the jurisdiction assessors Matter Jurisdiction Motion To Strike Answer To Subject plaintiffs plaintiffs appeal the standing Judgment plaintiffs subject matter appeal Considering applicable law and the same and hereby deny both the argument regarding answer to merit to the assessors of us and the motion to strike 11 the TRIAL COURT S DISMISSAL OF ASSESSORS INTERVENTION ASSESSORS STANDING TO APPEAL As previously indicated the trial court dismissed The trial court found that the petition of intervention to intervene as the matter adjudication On appeal plaintiffs contend that the disallowed and that the in the the was assessors underlying judgment on an lack case going standing In response the to with the prejudice assessors had that already been through had intervention assessors appeal the other assessors point of their motion for plaintiffs motions defendants Thus joinder of them as to they appeal joined were P citing La Code Civ art 2082 parties vested them with the the same a properly matters addressed out that subsequent to the parties in this matter on named as assessors were assessors argue that plaintiffs absolute and unrestricted right of authorizing by third interventions third person having an interest therein may intervene in a action to enforce a right related to or connected with the object pending of the pending action against of the one or more parties thereto by Joining with plaintiff in demanding the against the defendant 1 same or similar relief 2 Uniting with defendant in resisting the plaintiff s demand 3 Opposing both plaintiff and defendant Marcello Inc In Mike M La 1 Cir 5 6 05 App v It is intervention and related settled well are twofold connexity or to Louisiana the as a judgment of or 2004 0488 pp jurisprudential follows by jurisprudence that principal connected to the facts a Control Bd the the intervenor must have Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2082 to have Gaming 903 So 2d 545 548 this court reviewed the requirements for intervention noting in to pending action provides A party was 6 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1091 persons in as consolidate other suits in which the appeal enjoyed by any other party 6 of action no cause entry of the judgment dismissing their petition of intervention but prior lodging 4 5 assessors action or and the interest must be so object of the principal action that provides trial court revised a requirements for justiciable interest as follows modified 12 Appeal set aside is the exercise of the or reversed a right of a by an appellate court judgment intervenor principal action will have a direct impact on rights A justiciable interest is defined as the right the on s the of a party to seek redress or a remedy against either the plaintiff or defendant in the original action or both and where those parties have a real interest in opposing it The right if it exists must be so related or connected to the facts or object of the principal action that a judgment on the principal action will have a direct impact on the intervenor s rights Citations omitted Pursuant to La Code Civ P art 1031 The time at which as court if it will not retard the progress of the trial on is based upon the App 1 Cir 1984 pending and Light Co v including the time the answer to the providing that principal action In the is filed with leave of principal demand incidental demand will an it is fundamental to Cook v judgment Charpentier 165 Corp v In the instant case it intervention was not filed until trial court s dismissal of the affirm the judgment on an 615 La petition of intervention on intervention However the have our standing of action App 1 Cir to us judgment 13 as we General 1953 that the assessors the main demand and dismissed the appeal the remaining 1366 only while 1964 1 Cir was not in error inquiry does not end here App See also Louisiana Power is clear from the record before long after the judgment La 446 So 2d 1362 intervention may be filed a n the main demand So 2d 614 Inc Jordan 65 So 2d 627 629 La App no cause be filed after scheme of procedure that of the trial court to the extent that it maintained raising the objection of never Matherne 432 So 2d 1039 1041 this court concluded that before our Winn Dixie of Louisiana v Motors Acceptance assessors as prior to trial In Van Lieu 1 Cir 1983 suit is answer to assumption that the merits is conducted there must be notice La An incidental demand may be filing will not retard the progress of the principal demand Article 1033 if the obviously incidental demand An incidental demand may be filed thereafter with leave of demand is filed incidental demand may be filed after court an governed by La Code Civ P follows filed without leave of court at any time up to and principal intervention is incidental demand may be filed is an 1033 which provides in pertinent part art an Thus the Accordingly we plaintiffs exception assessors petition of need to consider whether matters addressed in the underlying Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 2086 in the trial court could have intervened The has been taken correction of a object of an may appeal whether appeal is to give judgment is rendered but also to there is allegedly aggrieved by the judgment Thus the intervenor would have had the Mike M Marcello Inc In the case sub pipelines As this judice there court a a the Thus ie proceedings they simply error by the Mike M assessors Marcello in ANR VI s so in a 2004 0488 at 4 herein the to the party when such party is third right assessors the to prosecute an to justiciable plaintiffs public assessors service the parties are 2005 1142 at 30 923 have intervened in the right appeal if underlying proceedings ANR VI timely fashion does not affect their Inc plaintiffs argument court failed to do only to the parties the reassessment of clearly could appeal for the is no doubt that the assessors have a acknowledged assessors not any other at 547 548 ultimately responsible for the refunds owed plaintiffs So 2d at 99 not person who recourse to intervene in the 2004 0488 at 4 903 SO 2d principal action to the right or a aggrieved party an judgment and such right is extended action in which the right related provides that However this underlying procedural prosecute the instant appeal 903 So 2d at 547 548 Thus contrary to clearly have standing to appeal the trial August 6 2007 judgment INTERPRETATION OF ANR VI AS IT RELATES TO REASSESSMENTS AND REFUNDS In the instant made a mockery of plaintiffs property appeal the this court from full refund of taxes s assessors argue that the August 6 2007 judgment ruling in ANR VI and prevented the continuing b y declaring that the plaintiffs reassessment were paid under protest and ordering that the Commission 7 of entitled to a cannot hear According to the record even plaintiffs acknowledged below that the assessors had a right to prosecute appeal Following the trial courts August 6 2007 judgment the assessors originally moved for a Plaintiffs noted that b ecause their intervention was suspensive appeal to which plaintiffs objected the Assessors were third parties seeking to appeal judgment pursuant to Louisiana Code of Civil denied However plaintiffs went on to state that the assessors have the requisite interest in the Procedure 2086 proceedings to appeal The trial court subsequently denied the assessors motion for suspensive appeal and granted them a devolutive appeal the instant 14 the appeals challenging the correctness of refunds in Emphasis glaring error of the ruling in review not entitled to of the trial court ANR VI which maintain ruling is readily disclosed by expressly held that plaintiffs were s at 15 were to of the plaintiffs property with taxes to be values Emphasis in original reassess new contrary plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred To the plaintiffs receive refund of taxes paid under protest and instead ordered a that the Assessors recalculated Specifically the assessors original The reassessment until after month time limitation set by this by the court in ANR VI and in proceedings reassessments Commission and issuance of the refunds Plaintiffs continue the argument appealS assessors regarding be in not failing to the Boards completed enforcing to the six require that all of Review and the within the six month the refund process noting as period follows Because the Commission exceeded the limited time period to complete the refund proceedings ordered by the trial court and approved by this Court any proceedings to determine the amount of refunds for any parish Accordingly Plaintiffs are entitled to of the fair market have their refunds for the relevant years based on 15 values of their publiC service property as determined by the Commission 2006 the last day of the six month period The as of September 17 it no longer had jurisdiction to conduct difference between the taxes based on an of fair assessment at 15 by the Commission and the taxes based on the assessment at 25 of that fair market value plus interest must be to Plaintiffs immediately refunded market value as determined Plaintiffs also argue that the trial court erred in process and stating that the ultimate outcome of the new tax submission of nothing litigation that enforce was judgment discussed as THE COURT reassessment bills to collect additional taxes in ANR VI that warranted the two by the trial creating a two step refund process could be the Plaintiffs contend there step approach for the remedy phase of this court during the hearing on the motion to follows Clearly in the body of the opinion by it states that the first circuit on accordingly we hereby amend the judgment to prOVide that the deadline for completion of reassessment is six months from the date the judgment becomes final but then in the conclusion they state the judgment is hereby amended to provide that the Commission shall cause to issue plaintiffs a full refund plus interest of the taxes paid under protest no later than six months from the date the judgment is final pursuant to its authority I guess the question is one of Did they intend it how did the first circuit intend that to be accomplished for the Commission to give all the moneys paid in protest back and then there be a lapse period between the six months when the new calculation Do was done and when the finality of the payment decisions were made Clearly to me the first circuit is very clear that you see what Im saying page 31 was 15 it s two distinct issues to them in their mind Pay back what you have in your coffers that they paid under protest within six months of the finality of this and then the reassessment had to also have been done within six months in which case they could either be the taxes would be paid or paid under protest So to the extent that the Commission has not am I correct that the Commission has not refunded all of the refunded MR BELL That THE COURT s correct your Honor To the extent it was not refunded it must be refunded To the extent that y all have not yet paid you need to pay on the assessed or I think that was the intent of pay it under protest under the reassessed the first circuit I know you re MR BELL re THE You asking Yes COURT us to 19 million under pay I think it s clear what sir protest they re saying is the Commission give back the money paid under protest because it was that you are improperly calculated using the wrong system and that the saying at the end of the day you may not get your million back but Im saying you ve got to follow the rules not I m not Im MR BELL to follow the rules your Honor willing the reassessment in a number of cases were but the 19 let s completed in six not months THE COURT MR BELL Well I understand that What is remedy our get your money back from them and get the reassessment Am I If you haven t been assessed for that time period missing something you don t have a tax bill yet THE COURT it seems to me you Well you don t have to pay your tax until you MR BELL We don t have THE COURT a And the Commission has to to the first circuit paid under protest according you re holding the cash you MR BELL We haven t received cash THE COURT a different way MR to I understand That s why we re s Seems to me like your Honor because they sitting here interpreted today but the clearly judgment to me if your honor if you re saying that we need If your honor all of our money back that s fine and we ll deal with the tax bills as BELL get they come due Yes THE Well COURT we I complaining things together and BELL additional tax ll take the money figured you would about that MR that give you your money back that one but it seems of them says to now I didn t think you would be you have to read the two me where is my page But the reassessment doesn t What it does 16 mean that you owe an No sir it doesn t THE COURT mean any tax but if they are to they are paying back to you owe you pay back everything you paid under protest that for which you received a tax bill previously MR BELL That s right correct All right You get reassessed you re going to get a new tax bill for the 1994 through 2003 or whatever this covered for ANR and different years for the other folks right Then you re going to have to pay those taxes upon receipt THE COURT All MR BELL right your honor To the extent that the THE COURT your assessments it seems me assessors are assessors are you don t saying late in getting them any money you yet your honor at all I know the State doesn t like this idea The to be pissed off at it but its their fault for not going really in the proper time under the doing things owe re I mean THE COURT supreme court denied writs MR BELL to I agree with that MR BELL I understand what you on order of the first circuit and the all this didn t they Yes your honor stuck with what the first circuit says and the first circuit clearly says in its judgment that Commission shall cease to issue shall cause to issue plaintiffs a full refund plus interest of taxes paid THE COURT under protest You re later than six months from the date no and then directs the tax the assessors judgment is final to correct the tax rolls And it also says have six months from the final judgment to complete the assessors reassessment Pretty clear to MR BELL right your honor Now at the All THE COURT going to different Mr Bell me happy with what their argument for a different day be We can error in this case as I understand that you re not reassessments are but that s a end of the day litigate that issue your Plaintiffs assert that the trial court taxes a the trial court s s Honor interpretation of ANR VI compounds the August 6 2007 judgment requires paid under protest but then requires plaintiffs additional new taxes under protest before they reassessed values of their envisioned properties the reassessment refund process to pay those taxes can We agree 17 refund of all again plus challenge the validity of the Plaintiffs maintain this by the panel that decided ANR VI when it a cannot set the six be the remedy month deadline for In ANR VI we reviewed the trial court s declaratory judgment in favor of plaintiffs whereby the trial court found that the actions of the Commission in the administration of Louisiana s ad valorem tax scheme service and violated the pipelines equal protection The United States Constitutions Commission for the reassessment of at and issue the calculation pertained plaintiffs public to and due process clauses of the Louisiana trial remanded court matter the plaintiffs public service pipelines for the of taxes based on fifteen the tax years of those 15 percent to plaintiffs full a plus interest of the difference between the amounts paid for each year and the refund reassessed amount no later than we to the Commission remanded assessors to assess the September 20 2005 affirmed the appeal On with However instructions that the we appeal and provided that It was require the recognized based on the need for fifteen an same would be no of those 15 percent at extension of the deadline for to the delays occasioned by the later than six months from the date our became final was never our of additional taxes taxes on Commission matter plaintiffs publiC service pipelines for each of the tax years completion of the reassessment and refund process due judgment extent that the judgment to the and that the taxes be calculated assessments intention that the reassessments would result in the Rather plaintiffs publiC the reassessments service pipelines determination of the amount of refunds due were the process was as pipelines 2 as originally envisioned by the follows 1 complete the calculate the taxes those assessments and the tax years in 3 on those imposition to be used for the calculation of for the tax years at issue and for the if any based the reassessed amounts and the amount of taxes VI it The trial court further ordered the Commission to issue assessments issue as on the difference between previously paid under protest trial court and affirmed reassessments properties based by this of plaintiffs on fifteen court in ANR public service percent 15 refund the difference if any between the amounts question and the reassessed judgment distorted this process by requiring 18 an paid of for s August 6 2007 immediate refund of all property taxes amounts The trial court Thus paid under protest for the hear plaintiffs appeals from the trial court further completed from tax years at issue before the Commission reassessments of their participating paid pursuant publiC service pipelines complicated matters by ordering that any the reassessment process within the neither considered judgment would be full and final nor contrary to this court s ruled ruling on in ANR VI The were barred that any refunds that were matters were Again these The trial court s to who had not assessors six month deadline proceedings and ordering in any further to its original could proceed judgment is clearly in ANR VI and must be reversed CONCLUSION For the above objection of lack of affirm the trial court and foregoing with s August 6 2007 judgment to the In all other no cause respects appeal are to strike We extent that it maintained remand the 1 completion of the process that associated with this exception raising the hereby plaintiffs assessors petition the trial court s judgment and remand completion of the reassessment refund process costs the of action and dismissed the we reverse instructions that the trial court necessary for the deny we subject matter jurisdiction and the motion exception raising the objection of of intervention reasons matter to and are establish just and fair equally assessed 2 the Commission for between any to all deadlines parties s plaintiffs and All the assessors EXCEPTION MOTION RAISING LACK TO STRIKE DENIED PART AND REVERSED IN PART 8 We note that should there be OF SUBJECT AUGUST 6 MATTER JURISDICTION AND 2007 JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN MATTER REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS noncompliance with these deadlines the set forth in the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure for contempt seq 19 of court parties should utilize See La Code Civ the procedures P arts 221 et
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
