Ex Parte Exxon Mobil Corp.
Decision Date | 02 September 2005 |
Docket Number | 1040538. |
Citation | 926 So.2d 303 |
Parties | Ex parte EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION. (In re Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Baldwin County et al.) |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Duana A. Graham of Armbrecht Jackson, LLP, Mobile, for petitioner.
Robert A. Wills of Wills & Simon, Bay Minette, for respondent Baldwin County Commission.
Exxon Mobil Corporation ("Exxon") petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals affirming, without an opinion, the judgment of the Baldwin Circuit Court upholding a final assessment against Exxon by Baldwin County of a use tax. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Baldwin County (No. 2030648, Dec. 30, 2004), 921 So.2d 478 (Ala.Civ.App.2004) (table). We granted the petition to review an issue of first impression concerning the interpretation of § 40-20-2(c) and (d), Ala.Code 1975, imposing limitations on the power of a county to impose taxes on businesses such as Exxon. We reverse and remand.
Exxon produces natural gas from offshore wells located in Mobile Bay and in the Gulf of Mexico. To accomplish that purpose, Exxon established offshore drilling and production facilities. Some time before 1993, Exxon contracted with McDermott, Inc., a Louisiana company, to construct at McDermott's plant in Morgan City, Louisiana, "platforms" and "templates" that compose the basic structures of offshore drilling and production facilities. The record contains the testimony of a design engineer for Exxon, who explained the nature and function of "platforms" and "templates":
After they were manufactured, the platforms and templates were transported by water to their intended offshore locations, being either towed or carried on a barge. One of these platforms and its associated templates were eventually located on submerged lands within the taxing jurisdiction of Baldwin County.
Although not entirely clear from the record, it would appear that Exxon itself purchased all of the materials, supplies, and equipment used to manufacture the platforms and templates, and, although again not entirely clear from the record, it apparently did so in Louisiana. Baldwin County notes in its brief, without any real explanation, that Exxon had obtained a "direct pay permit," which allowed it to purchase the materials, supplies, and equipment without paying a sales tax in Louisiana. A letter in the record dated November 16, 1995, from an employee in the "foreign audit section" of the Alabama Department of Revenue to another employee, advises that "Exxon received a direct pay permit RA 000 RA 322 for the construction of Onshore treating facility and Offshore production platforms in state waters."
In his testimony, the Exxon design engineer explained that once platforms and templates have been transported to the desired location over the gas well or wells to be serviced, the structures are placed on submerged caissons or foundations. The facility is then hooked up to pipelines to the processing plant and production commences. The interval between that setup and the production of natural gas can be as short as a couple of weeks or as long as several months. No witness testified concerning the time frame involved for the offshore drilling and production facility located in the submerged waters off the coast of Baldwin County. The portions of § 40-20-2, Ala.Code 1975, pertinent to an understanding of the issues in this case are as follows:
Consistent with the terminology used by the parties, § 40-20-2 is hereinafter sometimes referred to as "the severance tax statute," and the tax imposed by it as "the severance tax."
Section 40-23-61(a) imposes an excise tax, also known and hereinafter referred to as a "use tax," which, relevant to the instant action, is imposed upon "the storage, use or other consumption in this state of tangible personal property ... purchased at retail ... for storage, use or other consumption in this state at the rate of four percent of the sales price of such property or the amount of tax collected by the seller, whichever is greater ...."
By adopting two virtually identical and overlapping ordinances, Baldwin County has established its own use tax. The ordinances contain the following language: "An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage, use, or other consumption in Baldwin County of tangible personal property... purchased at retail ... for storage use or other consumption in Baldwin County ...."
It is undisputed that Exxon paid the State the use taxes associated with the offshore drilling and production facility located within Baldwin County (hereinafter "the Baldwin offshore facility"), that it has paid all ad valorem taxes due with respect to the facility, and that it has paid the State substantial severance taxes due under § 40-20-2(a)(1) for the production of natural gas from the Baldwin offshore facility. Pursuant to § 40-20-8, prescribing the allocation and distribution of oil and gas severance taxes among the State, counties, and municipalities, Baldwin County has received 10 percent of all severance taxes paid by Exxon to the State based on the production of natural gas from the Baldwin offshore facility. Additionally, by virtue of a statute enacted on October 1, 1971, for the sole benefit of Baldwin County, it receives an additional 1% severance tax on oil and gas removed from its soil or waters or from beneath its soil or waters. Act No. 2120, Ala. Acts 1971.
At various times, Baldwin County has directly handled the assessment and collection of its use taxes, has arranged for the Alabama Department of Revenue to do so, or has outsourced the work to an independent contractor. On February 27, 1996, after Baldwin County had elected to change its collecting agent from the Alabama Department of Revenue to an independent contractor — Pash & Company, Inc. — an official with the Department of Revenue...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. LeFleur (Ex parte LeFleur)
...that was applicable in the Court of Civil Appeals.’ Ex parte Toyota Motor Corp., 684 So. 2d 132, 135 (Ala. 1996)." Ex parte Exxon Mobil Corp., 926 So. 2d 303, 308 (Ala. 2005)."We review a summary judgment by the following standard:" ‘ " ‘In reviewing the disposition of a motion for summary ......
-
Versiglio v. Bd. of Dental Exam'r of Ala.
...that was applicable in the Court of Civil Appeals.’ Ex parte Toyota Motor Corp., 684 So.2d 132, 135 (Ala.1996).”Ex parte Exxon Mobil Corp., 926 So.2d 303, 308 (Ala.2005). The Court of Civil Appeals stated the following regarding the standard of review applicable in that court: “ ‘In Newman ......
-
Ex Parte Healthsouth Corp.
...is construing statutory provisions. Robertson, supra; Pilgrim v. Gregory, 594 So.2d 114, 120 (Ala.Civ.App.1991)." Ex parte Exxon Mobil Corp., 926 So.2d 303, 308 (Ala.2005). III. A. Whether "Error" Has a Meaning Different from "Mistake" Section 40-10-160 provides: "Any taxpayer who through a......
-
State v. Land (Ex parte Land)
...of the legislature, we must examine the statute as a whole and, if possible, give effect to each section."" ‘ " ‘Ex parte Exxon Mobil Corp., 926 So. 2d 303, 309 (Ala. 2005). Further," ‘ " ‘ "when determining legislative intent from the language used in a statute, a court may explain the lan......
-
Alabama's Appellate Standards of Review in Civil Cases
...Motor Corp., 684 So. 2d 132, 135 (Ala. 1996)." Ex parte Folsom, 42 So. 3d 732, 736 (Ala. 2009); Accord, Ex parte Exxon Mobil Corp., 926 So. 2d 303, 308 (Ala. 2005). 2. Petitions for writs of mandamus-general a. Petition for writ of mandamus-discovery rulings "'"Mandamus is a drastic and ext......