Western Energy Co. v. State, Dept. of Rev., No. 98-713.
| Docket Nº | No. 98-713. |
| Citation | 1999 MT 289, 990 P.2d 767, 297 Mont. 55 |
| Case Date | November 26, 1999 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
990 P.2d 767
1999 MT 289
297 Mont. 55
v.
The STATE of Montana, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondents and Appellants
No. 98-713.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted on Briefs July 1, 1999.
Decided November 26, 1999.
Brendan R. Beatty, Montana Department of Revenue; Helena, Montana, For Appellants.
John Alke, Hughes, Kellner, Sullivan & Alke; Helena, Montana, For Respondent.
Justice TERRY N. TRIEWEILER delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 Western Energy Company ("WECO"), petitioned the District Court for the First Judicial District of Lewis and Clark County to review the State Tax Appeal Board's decision upholding the Department of Revenue's method of calculating WECO's coal production taxes. The District Court concluded that the Department's method of calculation misapplied the law and ordered that WECO owed no additional coal production taxes. The Department appeals from the order of the District Court. We affirm the District Court.
¶ 2 The sole issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred when it concluded that WECO's application of the incentive tax credit did not frustrate the plain language of § 15-35-203, MCA.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
¶ 3 In 1985 the Montana Legislature passed the New Coal Production Incentive Tax Credit Act of 1985, §§ 15-35-201, et seq., MCA, to encourage new sales of Montana coal. The Act provided a coal severance
¶ 4 In 1992, the Montana Department of Revenue conducted an audit of WECO for the years 1989 through 1991. The Department claimed that additional coal production taxes were due for WECO's coal produced during the period from 1989 through 1991, pursuant to the provisions of the New Coal Production Incentive Tax Credit Act of 1985, §§ 15-35-201, et seq., MCA. The additional coal production taxes included the coal severance tax, the gross proceeds tax and the resource indemnity trust tax. In arriving at the assessed deficiencies in the coal production taxes, the Department calculated WECO's coal production taxes due for new or incremental sales after adding the tax credit amount back to the base sales price and then by deducting the tax credit from the total sales price. The Department's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue, DA 18-0541
...and legislative intent is in doubt, we resolve the doubt in favor of the taxing power. Compare W. Energy Co. v. Dep't of Revenue , 1999 MT 289, ¶ 10, 297 Mont. 55, 990 P.2d 767, with State ex rel. Anderson v. State Bd. of Equalization , 133 Mont. 8, 13, 319 P.2d 221, 224 (1957). But in eith......
-
In re McLouth, No. 00-51569-13.
...Court does so under the "plain meaning" rule as explained by the Montana Supreme Court in Western Energy Company v. State, Dept. of Rev., 297 Mont. 55, 990 P.2d 767, 769 When we interpret a statute, our objective is to implement the objectives the legislature sought to achieve. Montana Wild......
-
In re D.B.J., No. DA 12–0069.
...We have recognized that the plain language of a statute most clearly reveals legislative intent. W. Energy Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 1999 MT 289, ¶ 11, 297 Mont. 55, 990 P.2d 767. Here, the plain language of § 41–3–432, MCA, requires that a show cause hearing be commenced within the statute'......
-
Friends of the Wild Swan v. Dnrc, No. 04-862.
...in the first instance, from the plain meaning of the words used." Western Energy Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 1999 MT Page 398 289, ¶ 11, 297 Mont. 55, ¶ 11, 990 P.2d 767, ¶ 11; Brevig, ¶ ¶ 14 First, we observe that the plain language of the statute, set forth above, does not require such accou......
-
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue, DA 18-0541
...and legislative intent is in doubt, we resolve the doubt in favor of the taxing power. Compare W. Energy Co. v. Dep't of Revenue , 1999 MT 289, ¶ 10, 297 Mont. 55, 990 P.2d 767, with State ex rel. Anderson v. State Bd. of Equalization , 133 Mont. 8, 13, 319 P.2d 221, 224 (1957). But in eith......
-
In re McLouth, No. 00-51569-13.
...Court does so under the "plain meaning" rule as explained by the Montana Supreme Court in Western Energy Company v. State, Dept. of Rev., 297 Mont. 55, 990 P.2d 767, 769 When we interpret a statute, our objective is to implement the objectives the legislature sought to achieve. Montana Wild......
-
In re D.B.J., No. DA 12–0069.
...We have recognized that the plain language of a statute most clearly reveals legislative intent. W. Energy Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 1999 MT 289, ¶ 11, 297 Mont. 55, 990 P.2d 767. Here, the plain language of § 41–3–432, MCA, requires that a show cause hearing be commenced within the statute'......
-
Friends of the Wild Swan v. Dnrc, No. 04-862.
...in the first instance, from the plain meaning of the words used." Western Energy Co. v. Dept. of Revenue, 1999 MT Page 398 289, ¶ 11, 297 Mont. 55, ¶ 11, 990 P.2d 767, ¶ 11; Brevig, ¶ ¶ 14 First, we observe that the plain language of the statute, set forth above, does not require such accou......