State Dept. of Revenue v. MGH Management, Inc.

• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
• Writing for the Court: ROBERTSON
• Citation: 627 So.2d 408
• Parties: STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. MGH MANAGEMENT, INC., and Manderson & Associates, Inc. 2910476.
• Decision Date: 26 February 1993

Page 408

627 So.2d 408 STATE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
v.
MGH MANAGEMENT, INC., and Manderson & Associates, Inc. 2910476. Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. Feb. 26, 1993.
Rehearing Denied April 2, 1993.
Certiorari Denied Aug. 27, 1993
Alabama Supreme Court 1921137.

James H. Evans, Atty. Gen., and Ron Bowden, Chief Counsel, and Dan E. Schmaeling, Asst. Counsel, Dept. of Revenue, and Asst. Attys. Gen., for appellant.

David M. Wooldridge, Frances Heidt and W. Todd Carlisle, Birmingham, for appellees.

ROBERTSON, Presiding Judge.

The Alabama Department of Revenue (Department) appeals from a judgment entered by the Montgomery Circuit Court, which held that Manderson & Associates, Inc. (Manderson), and MGH Management, Inc. (MGH), were entitled to refunds of Alabama corporate income taxes paid for the years 1986, 1987, and 1988. For the years in question, Manderson and MGH were domestic Alabama corporations doing business primarily in Georgia.

Manderson and MGH requested a hearing before the administrative law judge (ALJ) after the Department had denied their petitions for refunds of corporate income taxes paid to Alabama for the 1986 tax year. The corporations alleged that they had erroneously been required to pay taxes on the same income to both Georgia and Alabama.

Following a hearing, the ALJ entered a recommended order wherein he found that Manderson and MGH were entitled to refunds by virtue of application of the Multistate Tax Compact (Tax Compact) as found at §§ 40-27-1 through -6, Code 1975. The Tax Compact provides for the allocation and apportionment of income of taxpayers doing

Page 409

business in more than one state in such a manner as to avoid duplicative taxation.

Pursuant to the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act, the ALJ's recommended order went to the Commissioner of the Department, who, upon review of the proceedings before the ALJ, entered a final order denying Manderson's and MGH's refund petitions. In ruling for the Department, the Commissioner took the position that the Tax Compact had not been enacted in Alabama. From the Commissioner's final order, Manderson and MGH filed a notice of appeal in the circuit court.

Prior to the hearing in the circuit court, the parties entered into a stipulation setting forth all relevant facts and the issues presented for review. It was agreed that the issues relating to the corporations' petitions for refunds of their 1986 taxes were identical to those relating to petitions they had filed for refunds of taxes paid for 1987 and 1988 as well. Consequently, the parties stipulated that the refund claims for the later two years would be resolved in accordance with the trial court's ruling on the 1986 taxes.

The case was submitted upon briefs and oral argument before the trial court on December 16, 1991. In an order entered on January 3, 1992, the trial court found that the case could be decided on the single question of whether the Tax Compact was in force and effect in Alabama and that, if so, the Department had admitted the taxpayers were entitled to a refund. The trial court then determined that the Tax Compact was in force and effect in this state. On the basis of this determination, the trial court held that Manderson and MGH were entitled to refunds of taxes for the years 1986, 1987, and 1988, based upon computation of their tax liability under the Tax Compact. After its motion for reconsideration was denied by operation of law, the Department appealed to this court.

The sole issue presented for review on appeal is whether the Multistate Tax Compact, as found at §§ 40-27-1 through -6, Code 1975, is in full force and effect in Alabama.

Art. I, § 10, cl. 3, of the Constitution of the United States provides that: "No state shall, without the...