Ex parte Melof
Decision Date | 28 May 1999 |
Citation | 735 So.2d 1172 |
Parties | Ex parte Fred MELOF et al. (In re Fred Melof, et al. v. Fob James, et al.). |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles A. Dauphin and Elizabeth L. Wood of Baxley, Dillard, Dauphin & McKnight, Birmingham, for petitioners.
Ron Bowdon, counsel, Department of Revenue, and asst. atty. gen.; and Mark Griffin, asst. counsel, Department of Revenue, and asst. atty. gen., for respondent Commissioner of Revenue for the State of Alabama.
This case presents the question whether Alabama's retirement-benefit taxation classifications conflict with Amendment 25 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901 and equal-protection guarantees of the United States and Alabama Constitutions.
On April 14, 1989, this class action was filed in the Montgomery County Circuit Court against the Governor and the State commissioner of revenue in their official capacities (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the State"), on behalf of four subclasses of persons who had paid Alabama state income tax on retirement benefits received through the retirement programs of their employers: the Federal Government (including the military services); certain Alabama political subdivisions; and private employers. The complaint alleged that Alabama's system of exempting certain state retirees from income tax on retirement benefits while taxing the retirement benefits of private retirees and some public retirees (hereinafter that system is called the "retirement-tax structure") violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as an equal-protection guarantee of the Alabama Constitution provided under the combination of §§ 1, 6, and 22.
The case was filed pursuant to the United States Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. Michigan Dep't of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989), holding that Michigan's practice of applying different income-tax structures on federal and state retirement income was invalid under 4 U.S.C. § 111 and under the intergovernmental-tax-immunity doctrine.
The circuit court consolidated this case with two other cases that had been filed against the State: Rinehart v. Sizemore, CV-89-704, and Olts v. Sizemore, CV-89-734. Those two cases involved the taxation of retirement benefits of federal and military retirees. The parties involved in all three cases agreed to: 1) ratify Rinehart as establishing the appropriate class to represent the federal and military retirees, 2) dismiss the Olts case, and 3) sever the claims of the private retirees from those of the federal and military retirees. A judgment was eventually entered for the federal and military retirees in Sizemore v. Rinehart, 611 So.2d 1064 (Ala.Civ.App. 1992), writ quashed, 611 So.2d 1069 (Ala. 1993).
The four subclasses of retirees (with their representatives) are as follows:
Melof v. James, 735 So.2d 1166 (Ala.Civ. App.1998).
The representatives of the four subclasses described above ("representatives") filed an amended complaint that restated the allegations of equal-protection violations, but added the further allegation that Alabama's retirement-tax structure violated the provisions of Amendment 25 of the Alabama Constitution, which requires that "[i]n the event the legislature levies an income tax, such tax must be levied upon the salaries, income, fees, or other compensation of state, county and municipal officers and employees, on the same basis as such income taxes are levied upon other persons." The representatives sought a refund of all taxes determined by the court to have been collected from class members in violation of constitutional principles within the statutory three-year period of limitations.
The representatives and the State moved for summary judgments. The trial court entered a summary judgment for the State, holding that, "for Alabama tax purposes, Alabama's pre-1991 and post-1991 classification of retirement benefits is not in violation of the provisions of Amendment 25 to the Alabama Constitution, the Equal Protection Clause or the equal protection provisions of the Alabama Constitution," and it thus denied the representatives' requests for refund of taxes paid on their retirement benefits. The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed. Melof v. James, 735 So.2d 1166. We granted the representatives' petition for certiorari review and heard oral arguments. We now affirm.
Whether Alabama's retirement-tax structure violates Amendment 25 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901.
The exemptions and constitutional amendments at issue were adequately recounted in their historical context by the Court of Civil Appeals:
Melof v. James, 735 So.2d at 1168-69.
In essence, Amendment 25 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901 does three things: 1) it allows the Legislature to institute an income tax; 2) it tells how the tax funds are to be distributed; and 3) it prohibits the State from imposing on the citizenry at large an income-tax structure that differs from that applied to state employees. Amendment 25 reads in full:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cline v. Ashland, Inc.
...(quoting Beasley v. Bozeman, 294 Ala. 288, 291, 315 So.2d 570, 572 (1975) (Jones, J., concurring specially)). See also Ex parte Melof, 735 So.2d 1172, 1186 (Ala.1999) (`"`courts are not bound by stare decisis to follow a previous interpretation [that is] later found to be erroneous'"' (quot......
-
Town of Gurley v. M&N Materials, Inc.
...(1958)).” In his article Interpreting the Alabama Constitution, 71 Ala. Law. 286 (July 2010), Marc James Ayers, discussing Ex parte Melof, 735 So.2d 1172 (Ala.1999), set forth a cautionary tale concerning this Court's role as final arbiter of the Alabama Constitution: “In [ Ex parte] Melof,......
-
Gillis v. Frazier
...1975, was unconstitutional. In support of his argument, Dr. Gillis cites Ex parte Apicella, 809 So.2d 865 (Ala.2001), and Ex parte Melof, 735 So.2d 1172 (Ala.1999).This Court revisited the Schulte decision in Mobile Infirmary Ass'n v. Tyler, 981 So.2d 1077 (Ala.2007), and declined to revive......
-
Griffin v. Unocal Corp.
...(quoting Beasley v. Bozeman, 294 Ala. 288, 291, 315 So.2d 570, 572 (1975) (Jones, J., concurring specially)). See also Ex parte Melof, 735 So.2d 1172, 1186 (Ala.1999) (`"`courts are not bound by stare decisis to follow a previous interpretation [that is] later found to be erroneous'"' (quot......
-
Medical Malpractice as Workers' Comp: Overcoming State Constitutional Barriers to Tort Reform
...concerns that go beyond a particular temporary crisis.377. Ala. Const. art. I, § 6.378. Id. art. I, § 13.379. See Ex parte Melof, 735 So. 2d 1172, 1202 (Ala. 1999) (Cook, J., concurring in the result, dissenting from the rationale) (citing the 1901 constitutional convention proceedings).380......
-
Interpreting the Alabama Constitution
...occurred in the debate over Alabama's "phantom equal protection clause" found in the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in Ex parte Melof, 735 So. 2d 1172 (Ala. 1999). In Melof, the court corrected an erroneous line of decisions that had actually created and relied upon a constitutional provi......