TDM, INC. v. Tax Commission, Case No. 20040706-CA.
| Decision Date | 18 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20040706-CA. |
| Citation | 103 P.3d 190,2004 UT App 433 |
| Parties | TDM, Inc., dba Trails and Trails II; RBD, Inc., dba Crazy Goat Saloon; Flight Deck, Inc., dba Northern Exposure; Due South, Inc., dba Southern Exposure; American Bush, Inc.; and Companions, LLC, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Tax Commission; and Pam Hendrickson, R. Bruce Johnson, Palmer Depaulis, and Marc B. Johnson, in their official capacities as members of the Tax Commission, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
W. Andrew McCullough and J. Robert Latham, Midvale, for Appellants.
Mark L. Shurtleff and Susan L. Barnum, Salt Lake City, for Appellees.
Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Orme.
¶1 Appellants TDM, Inc., RBD, Inc., Flight Deck, Inc., Due South, Inc., American Bush, Inc., and Companions, LLC (collectively TDM) appeal the trial court's dismissal of their complaint for lack of jurisdiction based on the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. This is before the court on TDM's motion for summary reversal based on manifest error, and on the Tax Commission's (Commission) motion for summary affirmance based on the lack of a substantial question for review. We review a trial court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction for correction of error. See Nebeker v. Tax Comm'n, 2001 UT 74,¶11, 34 P.3d 180.
¶2 Appellants are clubs featuring nude or semi-nude dancing and one escort service. Effective July 1, 2004, a new tax was imposed on sexually explicit businesses, including those of Appellants. TDM filed a complaint pursuing an injunction against the enforcement of the new tax and declaratory judgment that the tax was unconstitutional because it imposed a content-based tax in violation of the First Amendment. The complaint also alleged federal causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and requested damages under the federal statute.
¶3 The Commission moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing, among other things, that the complaint alleged "as applied" challenges to the tax statute, and thus required TDM to exhaust its administrative remedies before the Commission prior to moving to court. The trial court dismissed the federal causes of action, noting the federal causes of action were barred because there was a state remedy and damages were improper. These rulings are not challenged. The trial court then dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the state causes of action based on TDM's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
¶4 Generally, "'parties must exhaust applicable administrative remedies as a prerequisite to seeking judicial review.'" Nebeker, 2001 UT 74 at ¶14 (quoting Tax Comm'n v. Iverson, 782 P.2d 519, 524 (Utah 1989)). An exception to the exhaustion requirement, however, exists where "it appears that exhaustion would serve no useful purpose." Id. Although the Commission cannot "determine questions of legality or constitutionality of legislative enactments," Tax Comm'n v. Wright, 596 P.2d 634, 636 (Utah 1979), the introduction of a constitutional issue does not necessarily avoid the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies. See Johnson v. Utah State Ret. Office, 621 P.2d 1234, 1238 (Utah 1980).
¶5 Exhaustion of administrative remedies is still required when the administrative proceeding may obviate the need to reach the constitutional question. See id. Even if the constitutional issue is not avoided entirely, an administrative proceeding may be useful to better frame the issues before the court. See id. In contrast, where purely legal questions are raised that cannot be finally determined in an administrative proceeding, the pursuit of the administrative proceeding may serve no purpose. See Brumley v. Tax Comm'n, 868 P.2d 796, 799 (Utah 1993). Exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when the "legal questions involved are threshold questions, and their determination could not [be] avoided by any turn the case might have taken in [an administrative proceeding]." Id.
¶6 The trial court found that TDM was required to exhaust its administrative remedies to give the Commission the opportunity to determine how the tax statute would be applied. However, the issue is whether the tax statute on its face violates the First Amendment, thus precluding its application at all. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salt Lake Cnty. v. State, Delta Air Lines, Inc.
...Comm'n , 101 Utah 209, 120 P.2d 274, 274 (1941) (plaintiff sought a refund of $4,696.45 for overpayments on fuel taxes); TDM, Inc. v. Tax Comm'n , 2004 UT App 433, ¶¶ 6–7, 103 P.3d 190 (per curiam) (summarily reversing a district court determination that the factual record needed to be furt......
-
A-Fab Eng'g v. Prop. Tax Div. of the Utah State Tax Comm'n
...an exception to the rule that a party must exhaust when "it appears that exhaustion would serve no useful purpose." TDM, Inc. v. Tax Comm’n , 2004 UT App 433, ¶ 4, 103 P.3d 190 (per curiam) (cleaned up). Exhaustion would serve no useful purpose when the issue being reviewed presents a "thre......
-
Gunn v. Utah State Retirement Bd.
...or its defined statutory authority." Walker Bank & Trust Co. v. Taylor, 15 Utah 2d 234, 238, 390 P.2d 592 (1964); see also TDM, Inc. v. Tax Comm'n, 2004 UT App 433, ¶ 6, 103 P.3d 190. Specifically, Gunn asserts that the preliminary legal question as to whether PEHP has a valid subrogation c......