Melof v. James
Decision Date | 08 May 1998 |
Citation | 735 So.2d 1166 |
Parties | Fred MELOF, et al. v. Fob JAMES, et al. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Charles A. Dauphin and Elizabeth L. Wood of Baxley, Dillard, Dauphin & McKnight, Birmingham, for appellants.
Ron Bowden, chief counsel, Department of Revenue, and asst. atty. gen.; and Mark Griffin, asst. counsel, Department of Revenue, and asst atty. gen., for appellees. YATES, Judge.
This is a class action involving four subclasses. The representatives of the subclasses sued Governor Fob James and the state commissioner of revenue in their official capacities (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the State"), seeking a judgment declaring that Alabama's classification of retirement benefits for Alabama income tax purposes violates the provisions of Amendment 25 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901 and violates their rights to equal protection under the Alabama and United States Constitutions. Ala. Const., art. I, §§ 1, 6, and 22; U.S. Const., amend. 14, § 1.1
The three class representatives and the subclasses they represent are:
The class representatives and the State moved for summary judgments. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a summary judgment in favor of the State. The class representatives appeal.
Undisputed Facts
Amendment 25 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901 was ratified in 1933. It authorized the State to levy an income tax on Alabama citizens, but prohibited any special income tax treatment of the income of public officers and employees. Subsequent to the ratification of Amendment 25, the Legislature enacted an Alabama income tax in 1935. 1935 Ala. Acts No. 194.
The Legislature created the Teachers Retirement System of Alabama ("TRS") and the State Employees Retirement System of Alabama ("ERS") in 1939 and 1945, respectively. 1939 Ala. Acts, Act No. 419, and 1945 Ala. Acts, Act No. 515. Each of the acts creating the two retirement systems contains a provision exempting the systems' retirement benefits from any state or municipal tax. These exemptions remain in effect today. § 16-25-23 and § 36-27-28, Ala.Code 1975.
Amendment 61 to the Alabama Constitution of 1901 was ratified in 1947. Section C. of that Amendment provides:
"All laws relating to the income tax, not in conflict herewith and valid on the date of the ratification of this amendment, are hereby validated and confirmed."
In 1958, the Legislature codified the previously granted exemptions to retirement benefits of TRS and ERS members into the income tax statutes. 1959 Ala. Acts, Act No. 112.
Pursuant to § 36-27-6(a), Ala.Code 1975, counties, municipalities, and public or quasi-public boards of the state may join the ERS and thereby qualify their retirees for the exemption of retirement benefits from Alabama income tax.
Beginning with the tax year 1991, the Legislature exempted from income tax the retirement benefits received by Alabama taxpayers from: 1) the TRS, 2) the ERS, 3) political subdivisions of the State for employment as firefighters or peace officers, 4) any United States Government source; and 5) a "defined benefit plan," as defined in § 414(j) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. §§ 40-18-19 through -20, Ala.Code 1975.
Before 1991, for the tax years beginning in 1987, firefighters received an exemption on the first $8,000 per year of retirement compensation. Before 1991, for the tax years beginning in 1984, peace officers received an exemption on the first $8,000 per year of retirement compensation. Before 1991, there was no exemption for private retirement benefits. The retirement benefits of Alabama teachers, state employees, and federal civil service employees were exempt from tax before 1991 and for the years in question in this case.
The Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), Pub.L. No. 93-406, 1974, classifies qualified retirement plans as "defined benefit plans" and "defined contribution plans." The distinction between the two types of plans is that an employee's benefit under a "defined contribution plan" is the amount in an account in the employee's name, while an employee's benefit under a "defined benefit plan" is specified by the terms of the plan. In other words, a "defined contribution plan" specifies how much goes into the plan, while a "defined benefit plan" specifies how much comes out of the plan.
The retirement benefits distributed by the TRS and the ERS are from a "defined benefit plan," meaning that the employee's benefit is specified by the terms of the plan. § 16-25-14 and § 36-27-16, Ala. Code 1975.
The trial court concluded, in a well-reasoned and persuasive order, that the pre-1991 and post-1991 classification of retirement benefits for Alabama income tax purposes does not violate the provisions of Amendment 25. We agree. The court stated:
Equal Protection
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the equal protection provisions of the Alabama Constitution do not impose an iron rule of equality in state taxation. State v. Colonial Pipeline Co., 471 So.2d 408 (Ala.Civ.App. 1984), writ quashed, 471 So.2d 413 (Ala. 1985), appeal dismissed, 474 U.S. 936, 106 S.Ct. 299, 88 L.Ed.2d 276 (1985). The flexibility and variety necessary and appropriate in the development of taxation schemes are allowed pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause. Id.
The appropriate standard of review for equal protection challenges is the rational basis test. White v. Reynolds Metals Co., 558 So.2d 373 (Ala.1989). Under the rational basis test, "a classification for taxing purposes will be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate state purpose." Id., at 381 (citations omitted). In determining whether a challenged classification is rationally related to the achievement of a legitimate state purpose, a court must inquire whether the classification...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ex parte Melof
...plan,' or other private or public allowances, pensions or annuities for the years 1985 through the present." 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 allega......
- Bullin v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC.