General Motors Acceptance v. Jackson, No. A00A1315.

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
Writing for the CourtANDREWS, Presiding.
Citation542 S.E.2d 538,247 Ga. App. 141
PartiesGENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION v. JACKSON.
Docket NumberNo. A00A1315.
Decision Date15 November 2000

542 S.E.2d 538
247 Ga.
App. 141

GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION
v.
JACKSON

No. A00A1315.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

November 15, 2000.

Reconsideration Denied December 4, 2000.


542 S.E.2d 539
King & Spalding, Nolan C. Leake, L. Wayne Pressgrove, Jr., Felton E. Parrish, Atlanta, for appellant

Thurbert E. Baker, Attorney General, Daniel M. Formby, Deputy Attorney General, David A. Runnion, Warren R. Calvert, Senior Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee.

Parker, Hudson, Rainer & Dobbs, William J. Holley II, Charles W. Lyons, Atlanta, amici curiae.

ANDREWS, Presiding Judge.

General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC)1 appeals from the trial court's grant of summary judgment to T. Jerry Jackson, Commissioner of the Department of Revenue, in GMAC's appeal to the superior court of the Department's denial of its claim for a refund of sales and use taxes under OCGA § 48-8-45(c).

In reviewing the Department's administrative decision, the superior court determines whether there was any evidence to support the agency's decision. Sawyer v. Reheis, 213 Ga.App. 727, 728-729(1), 445 S.E.2d 837 (1994). Upon our review of the superior court's actions, the evidence is construed in favor of the agency's decision. Ga. Power Co. v. Ga. Public Svc. Comm., 196 Ga.App. 572, 580(5), 396 S.E.2d 562 (1990). Both the superior court and this Court review conclusions of law de novo. OCGA § 50-13-19(h); Municipal Elec. Auth. &c. v. Ga. Public Svc. Comm., 241 Ga.App. 237, 239(1), 525 S.E.2d 399 (1999).

So viewed, the record shows that GMAC finances both General Motors dealers' wholesale floor plans and retail purchases by consumers of automobiles from these dealers. The dealer acquires the cars from General Motors, and GMAC finances the acquisition by the dealer. Dealers are required to make monthly payments to GMAC of interest only. At the time the car is sold to a consumer, the dealer remits to GMAC the amount of the floor plan liability for the car.

On consumer purchases, GMAC and each dealer enter into the GMAC Retail Plan, a master contract which provides that GMAC may purchase contracts from the dealer at a discount rate. If GMAC approves the consumer's credit, the dealer would sign the Installment Contract's assignment provision, without recourse, so that GMAC would have no right to recover from the dealer if the consumer defaulted. The assignment clause provides: "Seller assigns its interest in this contract to General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC) under the terms of the GMAC Retail Plan agreement."

Upon GMAC's approval of the customer's credit and the resulting assignment to GMAC, the contract would be entered into GMAC's records, and payment would be made by GMAC to the dealer consisting of the "amount financed" on the contract, including sales tax, plus either a flat fee or an amount representing the difference between the interest rate the dealer charged the consumer and GMAC's "buy rate" at which the contract was purchased. The buy [247 Ga. App. 142] rate is generally lower than the rate paid by the retail customer and is where money is made on the deal. A flat fee is paid to the dealer if the rates are the same. Neither the assignment clause nor the GMAC Retail Plan makes any reference to sales taxes and their treatment after assignment.

Over years of doing business, GMAC has established a rate of default of three percent for its retail installment financing business based on contracts assigned by dealers. In order to provide for that, GMAC sets aside a certain percent of the finance charge as an anticipated loss reserve. For retail consumers with riskier credit, a larger loss reserve is set up. GMAC maintains accounts for each dealer to which the loss reserves are credited. As losses occur, they are deducted from the assigning dealer's account by GMAC.

In the event of a default by a purchaser, GMAC attempts collection efforts by negotiating and eventually by repossessing and selling the vehicle. A defaulting purchaser is charged late charges in addition to other contract amounts. Even after a delinquent

542 S.E.2d 540
account has been charged off by GMAC, it is possible that additional amounts will be received from the purchaser through these efforts

In August 1997, GMAC, for the first time, filed a claim for refund of sales taxes with the Department of Revenue. The claim sought a refund for the period from August 1, 1994 through October 31, 1996, for bad debts. GMAC computed the amount by multiplying the amount of its "uncollectible loan accounts" by a five percent tax rate.2 This claim was denied by the Department, and the superior court granted the Department summary judgment on the appeal.

1. GMAC's first enumeration is that the trial court erred in concluding that it did not qualify as "any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • State, Dept. of Taxation v. Daimlerchrysler, No. 42117.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • September 15, 2005
    ...862 (Me.2003); Department of Revenue v. Bank of America, 752 So.2d 637 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000); General Motors Acceptance v. Jackson, 247 Ga.App. 141, 542 S.E.2d 538 (2000); SunTrust Bank, Nashville v. Johnson, 46 S.W.3d 216 11. Chrysler Financial, 812 N.E.2d at 951; DaimlerChrysler, 817 A.2......
  • Chepstow Ltd. v. Hunt, No. 03-14051.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • August 19, 2004
    ...statutory exemption on state income taxes is a well-established one in Georgia law. See, e.g., Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jackson, 247 Ga.App. 141, 542 S.E.2d 538, 541 (2000) ("Whether and to what extent deductions to a taxation plan are allowed is a matter of legislative grace...."); ......
  • Coastal Marshlands v. Ctr. for Sust. Coast, No. A07A0752.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • July 11, 2007
    ...with respect to claimed errors of law in the superior court's affirmance of the ALJ's decision. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jackson, 247 Ga.App. 141, 542 S.E.2d 538 (2000); Gladowski v. Dept. of Family etc., Svcs., 281 Ga.App. 299, 635 S.E.2d 886 (2006); OCGA § When the General Assembly......
  • Longleaf Energy v. Friends of Chattahoochee, No. A09A0387.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 2009
    ...errors of law in the superior court's ruling, we conduct a de novo review. 681 S.E.2d 207 Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jackson, 247 Ga.App. 141, 542 S.E.2d 538 (2000); Gladowski v. Dept. of Family, etc. Svcs., 281 Ga.App. 299, 635 S.E.2d 886 2. The EPD and Longleaf contend that the super......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • State, Dept. of Taxation v. Daimlerchrysler, No. 42117.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court of Nevada
    • September 15, 2005
    ...862 (Me.2003); Department of Revenue v. Bank of America, 752 So.2d 637 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2000); General Motors Acceptance v. Jackson, 247 Ga.App. 141, 542 S.E.2d 538 (2000); SunTrust Bank, Nashville v. Johnson, 46 S.W.3d 216 11. Chrysler Financial, 812 N.E.2d at 951; DaimlerChrysler, 817 A.2......
  • Chepstow Ltd. v. Hunt, No. 03-14051.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • August 19, 2004
    ...statutory exemption on state income taxes is a well-established one in Georgia law. See, e.g., Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jackson, 247 Ga.App. 141, 542 S.E.2d 538, 541 (2000) ("Whether and to what extent deductions to a taxation plan are allowed is a matter of legislative grace...."); ......
  • Coastal Marshlands v. Ctr. for Sust. Coast, No. A07A0752.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
    • July 11, 2007
    ...with respect to claimed errors of law in the superior court's affirmance of the ALJ's decision. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jackson, 247 Ga.App. 141, 542 S.E.2d 538 (2000); Gladowski v. Dept. of Family etc., Svcs., 281 Ga.App. 299, 635 S.E.2d 886 (2006); OCGA § When the General Assembly......
  • Longleaf Energy v. Friends of Chattahoochee, No. A09A0387.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • July 7, 2009
    ...errors of law in the superior court's ruling, we conduct a de novo review. 681 S.E.2d 207 Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Jackson, 247 Ga.App. 141, 542 S.E.2d 538 (2000); Gladowski v. Dept. of Family, etc. Svcs., 281 Ga.App. 299, 635 S.E.2d 886 2. The EPD and Longleaf contend that the super......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT