Swanson v. State
| Citation | 335 N.C. 674,441 S.E.2d 537 |
| Decision Date | 04 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 64PA91,64PA91 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | , 62 USLW 2576, 18 Employee Benefits Cas. 1303 Norman W. SWANSON, Henry F. Murray, Carl L. Whitney, William E. Nicholson, III, Charles A. Dancy, Melvin F. Eyerman, Ira N. Schwarz, John L. Powell, Jr., Galina Elworth, Donald V. Wallace, William E. Denton, Robert A. Nisbet, Walter J. Bartnikowski, Ralph P. Hunt, Marion B. Zollicoffer, William H. Talbert, Billy Clark, Wallace M. Davis, Grady L. Strange, Hamilton M. Howe, Mary L. Pritchard, Robert B. Campbell, Browning Adams, Pritchard G. Adams, William H. Adams, Edward H. and Flossie P. Allen, Joseph A. Allen, Rachel C. Allred, Helen L. and Leo I. Anctil, Ronald E. Anderson, Clarence P. Armstrong, Carroll W. Austin, F.L. Austin, Jr., Donald P. Bahr, Paul Ballus, Charles D. Barker, Sr., Walter E. Barkhouse, Edward C. Barret, James L. Baxter, Russell W. Beard, Bernard L. Beatty, Richard K. Bell, Leo E. Benade, Sherman W. Betts, Joseph H. Betz, Robert L. Blevins, Franklin M. Blunt, Timothy C. Bolick, Margaret C. Boone, Henry A. Botkin, Alex Bourdas, Ola May (Tate) Bovender, Eugene A. Bowen, Lavaune K. Breda, Marlowe G. Breda, Trond G. Brekke, Laura B. Brendle, Millard Bridgers, Clarence M. Bridges, Doris K. Bridges, Cyrus H. Brooks, Jr., Daniel R. Brown, K.A. Brown, William D. Brown, Betty P. Bullock, Robert S. Bullock, Findley Burns, Jr., Ray G. Burrell, Richard E. Bush, James M. Byrne, Norman L. Carlton, Matthew E. Carmean, Frank Cates, J. Crawford Caton, Harry E. Chamberlain, Vincent H. Chase, Paul F. Chavez, Woodrow H. Childress, John G. Church, Herman L. Clanton, Robert L. Clarke, Charles C. Clausen, Sr., Dennis E. Cleckner, Steve P. Clemenic, Lacy W. Coates, Rucia A. Cobb, James A. Coddington, Catheryn S. Coley, Laura K. Conder, James C. Conine, Marshall G. Cooper, Asbury Coward, III, Newton P. Cox, Ruth A. Cox, Burnette E. Creasman, Thomas J. Culkin, Hazel B. Curlee, Milton L. Dail, Beatrice G. Davis, Bernley S. Davis, Donald M. Davis, Essie M. Davis, George E. Davis, Robert J. Davis, Clifford H. Dawson, Calvin F. |
Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice by G. Eugene Boyce, Raleigh and Charles H. Taylor, Winston-Salem, for plaintiff-appellees.
Michael F. Easley, Atty. Gen. by Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Senior Deputy Atty. Gen., Thomas F. Moffitt and Norma S. Harrell, Sp. Deputy Attys. Gen., and Marilyn R. Mudge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for defendant-appellants.
This is an action by plaintiffs, former federal employees and active duty federal military personnel and reservists, for the refund of certain income taxes paid by them before the 28 March 1989 decision of the United States Supreme Court in Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989). We conclude the action may not be maintained because plaintiffs failed to comply with the procedural prerequisites of N.C.G.S. § 105-267 (1992). We, therefore, reverse the entry of summary judgment for plaintiffs entered by the trial court and remand for entry of judgment for defendants dismissing the action.
Before Davis, twenty-three states, including North Carolina, exempted retired state employees from payment of income tax on pension benefits. Retired federal employees were exempt from payment of state income taxes on the first $3,000 of their pension benefits. There was no exemption for beneficiaries of private pensions. As of 1979, the first $1,500 of income for members of the North Carolina National Guard was excluded from taxation. In 1989, the State amended this benefit so that members of the National Guard received a $1,500 deduction. The State conferred no comparable benefit on members of the federal armed forces.
In Davis the United States Supreme Court held that a state statute exempting state employees' retirement benefits from taxation but not granting the same exemption to their federal counterparts violated the constitutional doctrine of intergovernmental tax immunity and 4 U.S.C. § 111 (1989). Under section 111 the federal government ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Raleigh Dist. of N.C. Methodist Church
...... On 15 October 1998, plaintiffs timely filed a motion to remand, or in the alternative, to stay the proceedings until similar state proceedings were concluded, which defendants opposed on 5 November 1998. On 16 February 1999, this court denied plaintiffs' motion and directed ...See Swanson v. State, 335 N.C. 674, 691, 441 S.E.2d 537, 548 (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1056, 115 S.Ct. 662, 130 L.Ed.2d 598 (1994) ("collateral estoppel, ......
-
Bailey v. State
......Further, this Court has ruled that the statutory procedures contained in section 105-267 are adequately protective of individuals' due process rights and are the exclusive means by which a tax under this subchapter may be challenged. Swanson v. State, 335 N.C. 674, 687, 441 S.E.2d 537, 545, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1056, 115 S.Ct. 662, 130 L.Ed.2d 598 (1994). As a result, the trial court technically erred in its conclusion that sovereign immunity had been completely waived by the passage of N.C.G.S. § 105-267 and in its order ......
-
Fulton Corp. v. Faulkner
......state residents inversely proportional to the corporation's exposure to the State's income tax. Petitioner Fulton Corporation, a North Carolina company, ... Cf. Swanson v. State, 335 N.C. 674, 680-681, 441 S.E.2d 537, 541 (noting that "[f]ailure to comply with the requirements in section 105-267 bars a taxpayer's ......
-
American States Ins. Co. v. State Dept. of Treasury
...... [Id. at 45, 110 S.Ct. at 2254-2255; accord id. at 50, 110 S.Ct. at 2257]. [220 Mich.App. 591] This language has been applied to uphold state refund procedures that require a taxpayer to challenge a tax within thirty days after payment of the tax, Swanson v. North Carolina, 335 N.C. 674, 441 S.E.2d 537, 545 (1994), and that taxpayers protest a tax at the time of payment as a prerequisite to relief, Jenkins v. Missouri, 962 F.2d 762, 766 (CA 8, 1992). Consistent with these precedents, we conclude that the ninety-day limitation period ......