William Rodman & Sons, Inc. v. State Tax Commission
| Decision Date | 06 February 1974 |
| Citation | 364 Mass. 557,306 N.E.2d 820 |
| Parties | WILLIAM RODMAN & SONS, INC. v. STATE TAX COMMISSION. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Samuel Leader, Chelsea, for taxpayer.
Robert H. Quinn, Atty. Gen., Walter H. Mayo, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Joseph A. Grasso, Jr., Legal Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State Tax Commission, submitted a brief.
Before TAURO, C.J., and REARDON, QUIRICO, HENNESSEY and WILKINS, JJ.
The Commissioner of Corporations and Taxation (Commissioner) assessed additional cigarette excises under G.L. c. 64C, against William Rodman & Sons, Inc. (Rodman) for the period May, 1971, through May, 1972. The excises sought were in the amount of $87,152.10, including $4,233.22 in interest. The State Tax Commission (Commission) thereafter denied Rodman's petition to abate the excises. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Tax Board (Board) under formal procedure and the Commission filed an answer with the Board on November 13, 1972. Thereafter, on March 23, 1973, the Commissioner notified Rodman that the August 30, 1972, bill for the excises had been voided and that a new bill would be forwarded following an assessment pursuant to G.L. c. 64C, § 7. There followed a motion by the Commission to dismiss on various grounds, including the voiding of the tax bill. The hearing on this motion was held on April 9, 1973, and on April 13, 1973, the Board allowed the motion to dismiss without prejudice. Rodman thereafter filed a request for findings of fact and report, which the Board made together with an opinion filed on May 8, 1973. On May 29, 1973, the Board allowed Rodman's motion to extend the time for filing a claim of appeal to this court to and including June 8, 1973. The claim of appeal was filed on June 4, 1973, by Rodman.
We dispose of this matter under the relevant statute, G.L. c. 58A, § 13, as amended through St.1969, c. 692, which reads in part as follows: 'A claim of appeal shall be filed with the clerk of the board within twenty days after the date of the decision of the board, or within twenty days after the date of a report of findings of fact, if such report is made on request of a party after the decision; and within twenty days thereafter, or within such further time as the board may allow, the appealing party shall enter the appeal in said court.' We are bound by the chronology in this case which is as follows:
April 13, 1973, Board decision to dismiss without prejudice;
April 23, 1973, Request for findings of fact and report;
May 3, 1973, Twenty day period after decision expired;
May 8, 1973, Board findings of fact and report issued;
May 18, 1973, Rodman's motion to 'correct' findings of fact and report filed;
May 23, 1973, Rodman's motion to extend time for filing appeal until ten days after Board action on motion to 'correct' findings of fact and report filed;
May 28, 1973, Twenty day period after issuance of findings and report expired;
May 29, 1973, Motion to 'correct' findings of fact and report denied;
May 29, 1973, Motion to extend time for filing appeal to and including June 8, 1973, allowed;
June 4, 1973, Appeal filed.
From the above it is clear that the claim of appeal was filed following the expiration of the latest twenty day period and, construing the statute strictly, was hence overdue. That the Board purported to allow a motion to extend the time for claiming an appeal, which motion was filed within the proper period, is of no moment because the Board was without power to grant the extension sought. To be distinguished is the fact that the Board is given authority by the statute to extend the time allowed for entering the appeal in the court as opposed to the time allowed for claiming the appeal by filing with the Board. The Legislature has seen fit to vest the first power in the Board and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A. v. Commissioner of Revenue
...our power to provide the excuse for those who fail to comply with" the dictates of a clear statute. William Rodman & Sons v. State Tax Comm'n, 364 Mass. 557, 560, 306 N.E.2d 820 (1974). Furthermore, in this case, even Nissan's claim of inherent unknowability is dubious. Nissan asserts it fi......
-
Fasi, Matter of, 6971
...mandatory, Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. State Tax Commission, 370 Mass. 127, 345 N.E.2d 893 (1976); William Rodman & Sons, Inc. v. State Tax Commission, 364 Mass. 557, 306 N.E.2d 820 (1974); 2A C. Sands, Sutherland on Statutory Construction § 57.19, at 445 (4th ed. 1973); cf. In re Taxes, Valley......
-
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. State Tax Commission
...board nor this court, however, can create an exception to the time limit specified by the statutes. William Rodman & Sons, Inc. v. State Tax Comm'n, 364 Mass. 557, 559, 306 N.E.2d 820 (1974). See DaLomba v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, --- Mass. ---, 337 N.E.2d 687 (1975). a......
-
Chirillo v. Commissioner of Revenue
...3 See Boston Five Cents Sav. Bank v. Assessors of Boston, 317 Mass. 694, 699, 59 N.E.2d 454 (1945), William Rodman & Sons v. State Tax Commn., 364 Mass. 557, 559-560, 306 N.E.2d 820 (1974). Before the board reached its decision on the abatement, the taxpayers had filed a request for finding......