CYNTHIA BRIDGES, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF LOUISIANA VS LYONDELL CHEMICAL COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF lOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2005 CA 2450 CYNTHIA BRIDGES SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF lOUISIANA VERSUS lYONDEll CHEMICAL COMPANY Judgment Rendered December 28 2006 t On 19th Appeal from the Judicial District Court In and For the Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana Trial Court No 531 059 Honorable John J Weiler Kay Bates Judge Counsel for Plaintiff New Orleans LA Appellant Cynthia Bridges Secretary of the Department of Revenue State of Robert W Counsel for Defendant Micah J Stewart Nuzum New Orleans LA Lyondell Chemical Louisiana Appellee Company BEFORE PETTIGREW DOWNING AND HUGHES JJ I J PETTIGREW J This is appeal an by plaintiff Cynthia Bridges Department of Revenue for the State of Louisiana from defendant Chemical Lyondell objections of improper Company prematurity venue granting and Secretary judgment a exceptions of the in favor of the raising The trial court s prescription judgment granting the exceptions dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs demand for attorney fees pursuant by the trial court we to La RS 47 1512 For reasons other than enumerated affirm FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY This litigation regarding attorney fees pursuant out of a multi year between the and dispute over corporate income and corporate franchise Company from Collection proceedings ensued through litigation in Orleans Parish and disputes were resolved through a from the Department to at the administrative level and in East Baton arising Lyondell in the amount of 2006 2196 out of the same that to facilitate a La 11 17 06 1 Or 6 So 2d October on 152 094 26 a net In 9 06 a These 10 refund Bridges v 938 SO 2d companion case global settlement of October 10 2003 this court noted settlement of the to defer resolution of their 7 Rouge Parish global settlement finalized Lyondell Chemical Company 2005 1535 La App writ denied the to assist with collection The settlement covered eleven tax years and resulted in 2003 786 Department span of tax years between 1987 and Department retained private counsel in 1999 Lyondell also on a taxes dispute between The Lyondell Department and Lyondell focused The 5 R 47 1512 arises Department of Revenue for the State of Louisiana Lyondell Chemical 1999 to La dispute primary dispute the parties mutually agreed as to attorney fees Lyondell 2005 1535 at 938 So 2d at 790 The the parties subsequently failed to resolve the issue of Department instituted this litigation on April 6 2005 Lyondell filed exceptions raising the objections of improper and prescription Following a attorney fees and On April 26 2005 venue prematurity hearing the trial court granted all of Lyondell 2 s exceptions and thereafter signed From this judgment of dismissal a August 22 2005 on judgment the Department has appealed LAW AND ANALYSIS This case reaches and prematurity venue note that the us exceptions raising the objections of improper on Before prescription Department bases its claim on these addressing La exceptions 5 R 47 1512 which we provides as follows The collector is authorized to to assist in employ private counsel the collection of any taxes penalties Sub title or to represent him in any interest due under this or proceeding under this Sub title If any taxes penalties or interest due under this title are referred to an attorney at law for collection an additional charge for of the attorney fees in the amount of ten per centum 10 taxes penalties and interest due shall be paid by the tax debtor This statute is that are raised incidentally Inc Petroleum normally utilized with respect d rev on other grounds Department and Lyondell gave proceedings and eleven year those three one period attorney fees the refund or to Although the actions for on Simons 1 Cir 2 23 04 tax 873 dispute between the collection proceeding involving the October 10 attorney fees litigation two judicial tax returns over an present appeal arises independently It is based claim for as a 2003 settlement that resolved proceedings La R S 47 1512 does not to be due in this matter the no bar exists to the Lyondell argues statute out Department contends that require litigation for the collection of R S 47 1512 cannot facti Lyondell points appeal and further that independently under the to La rise administrative In connection with its legal fees collection Falgout 2003 0610 p 16 La App v SO 2d 65 74 75 to to claims for possibly be valid that it as no taxes in order for bringing of in response that suit collection has taken ultimately received a net a claim pursuant place refund from in the Department This court s previous decision in Lyondell addressed corporate attorney fees allegedly owed by Lyondell as a audit dealt with tax in the amount of alleged corporate income 3 taxes and result of the second audit The 113 677 00 for the years 1991 and 1992 and alleged corporate franchise 72 910 00 for the years 1992 2 938 SO 2d at 787 interest of 69 723 09 refund due to 1994 and 1995 Lyondell 2005 1535 dispute Lyondell received Just as in that the case a net at refund of taxes and present dispute involves a net Lyondell for the years in question In its earlier the term In that 1993 taxes in the amount of due opinion in Lyondell this under the amount basis or calculated upon to refer to the and held as follows descriptive of the principal attorney fee percentage is amount of taxes penalties and due which interpreted the meaning of 5 R 47 1561 authority of La We thus construe the term court as the net interest ultimately determined to be due in this multi year action penalties and interest were ultimately found to be due in this cause so there is no basis upon which to impose the additional penalty representing attorney fees In so holding we do not mean to imply that the Department s private counsel did not render substantial and valuable services contributing to the amicable resolution of the complex disputes between the parties To the contrary the evidence does seem to support the amount of the award made by the trial court but it is unnecessary for us to consider Lyondell s assignment of error on that point Our conclusion simply accords with the strict construction required of penalty statutes which serve to shift attorney fees from prevailing parties to their opponents and the ultimate result is a common risk inherent in the nature of a contingent fee agreement Emphasis in original footnote omitted No taxes Lyondell 2005 1535 at 9 10 938 SO 2d at 791 792 Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 927 B failure to disclose the trial Recovery 2 20 98 the Inc v of plaintiffs by either court on its own Capital City Towing motion City of Baton Rouge 709 So 2d 248 objection a of action to institute the suit may be noticed a cause appellate or provides that 97 0098 p 5 251 The function of the peremptory no cause of action is to La App exception raising question whether law extends against the defendant under the factual allegations of the petition State 2004 0857 p 9 In the therefore supra we are After this court present a La case 12 1 04 889 SO 2d 1019 Lyondell received compelled a s ex proprio motu a 4 remedy Hoag v Department and earlier decision in thorough review of the pleadings and the record hereby grants a 1025 refund from the to follow this court 1 Cir Lyondell in this matter peremptory exception of no cause of action against the Department not entitled to recover 47 1512 under the error further discussion of to La 5 R case foregoing holding we deem it unnecessary to address the put forth by the Department and therefore pretermit same For the reasons assigned herein dismissing the Department 119 70 Lyondell and holds that the State is attorney fees against Lyondell pursuant unique facts of this Based upon the assignments of in favor of s we petition and against the Department AFFIRMED 5 affirm the assess judgment of the trial appeal court costs in the amount of STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT @ 2005 CA 2450 CYNTHIA BRIDGES SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS LYONDELLCHENUCALCOMPANY HUGHES J I dissenting respectfully decision and the Company dissent court s 2005 1535 previous La tax year stands on its decision in Bridges 1 Cir 6 9 06 App universally accepted including each state federal but rather and succeeded in figures were settlement on ignore the tax courts principle that own specific obtaining present Lyondell Chemical v 938 So 2d 786 and The claim for attorneys fees herein is settlement I believe the With all due respect an tax years based not for which counsel acknowledgment that then combined with other tax years to in which the state and the defendant taxes the global was retained on were accomplish agreed to due These the global defer the issue of attorneys fees If the government and the defendant can cut a deal and cut out the attorney after his fees have been earned the legislative intent of the statute is thwmied and attorneys willing to take on such work will be scarce
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.
