831 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1987), 86-3728, Greisen By and Through Greisen v. United States

Docket Nº:86-3728, 86-3828.
Citation:831 F.2d 916
Party Name:David J. GREISEN, By and Through his father and natural guardian, Ronald E. GREISEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. Mary Elizabeth BEATTIE and Catherine Anne Beattie, minors, Through their next friend, J. Patrick BEATTIE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:November 05, 1987
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 916

831 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1987)

David J. GREISEN, By and Through his father and natural

guardian, Ronald E. GREISEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

Mary Elizabeth BEATTIE and Catherine Anne Beattie, minors,

Through their next friend, J. Patrick BEATTIE,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 86-3728, 86-3828.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

November 5, 1987

Argued and Submitted Aug. 4, 1987.

William M. Bankston and Steven T. O'Hara, Bankston, McCollum & Fossey, P.C., Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiff-appellant in No. 86-3728.

David G. Shaftel, Anchorage, Alaska, for plaintiffs-appellants in No. 86-3828.

Ernest J. Brown, Washington, D.C., for defendant-appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska.

Before GOODWIN, ANDERSON and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:

These three separate claims, consolidated in the district court, challenge the assessment of federal income tax on payments from Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend Program. Plaintiffs seek refund of taxes paid, claiming that Alaska's distribution of its energy wealth to the state's residents through the program is a "gift," exempt from federal taxation. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court granted the government's motion, finding that the payments were not gifts, and that they were "income" within the meaning of the sixteenth amendment and the Internal Revenue Code.

In 1976, the people of the State of Alaska amended their constitution to establish the Alaska Permanent Fund, financed by at least 25 percent of the state's annual oil

Page 917

and mineral proceeds. Alaska Const., Art. IX, Sec. 15. The goals of the fund are: (1) to conserve a portion of the revenues earned from mineral resources for all generations of Alaskans; (2) to maintain the safety of the fund's principal while maximizing total return; and (3) to maintain a savings device allowing maximum use of disposable income from the fund for purposes designated by law. Alaska Stat. Sec. 37.13.020 (1983).

In 1980, the state legislature enacted the Permanent Fund Dividend Program to distribute annually a portion of the fund's earnings to each of the state's adult residents. The 1980 Act was intended: (1) to provide equitable distribution of a portion of the state's energy wealth to Alaskans; (2) to encourage people to remain Alaska residents, thereby reducing population turnover in the state; and (3) to encourage awareness and interest in the management of the fund. 1980 Alaska Sess.Laws Ch. 21 Sec. 1(b).

In 1982, the Supreme Court struck down as violative of equal protection the 1980 Act, finding that no valid state interest supported the payment of increased dividends to long-term residents. Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55, 65, 102 S.Ct. 2309, 2315, 72 L.Ed.2d 672 (1982). Anticipating a possible ruling by the Supreme Court, the Alaska legislature enacted "backstop" legislation, which became operative shortly after Zobel, codified at Alaska Stat. Secs. 43.23.005-.095 (1983). The legislature did not amend the stated purposes of the 1980 Act when it adopted the 1982 legislation.

The 1982 Act provided dividends of $1,000 to each eligible resident, including minors. 1 The three appellants sued separately for refunds from the Internal Revenue Service for taxes allegedly erroneously and illegally collected from them. Mary Elizabeth Beattie, a minor, sued through her father, J. Patrick Beattie, for a refund of $44.40 plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees for taxes paid on her 1982 and 1983 dividends, totalling $1,386.15. Her sister, Catherine Anne Beattie, also a minor, sued through her father for a refund of $57.40, plus interest, costs and attorney's fees for taxes paid on the identical dividend amounts. 2

David J. Greisen, a minor, sued through his father, Ronald E. Greisen, for the recovery of $2 taxes paid on his 1982 dividend of $1,000, plus interest, costs, and attorney's fees. Each of the three appellants filed timely refund claims with the Internal Revenue Service, all of which were denied.

We review grants of summary judgment de novo. See Bloom v. General Truck Drivers, 783 F.2d 1356, 1358 (9th Cir.1986). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

The taxpayers contend that summary judgment was inappropriate because the crucial issue of donative intent is a question of fact. The taxpayers cite Commissioner v. Duberstein, 363 U.S. 278, 289, 80 S.Ct. 1190, 1198, 4 L.Ed.2d 1218 (1960), which held that the...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP