Williams v. Commissioner of Revenue
| Decision Date | 26 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 9409-R |
| Parties | Bridgette Charmaine Williams, Appellant, v. Commissioner of Revenue, Appellee. |
| Court | Tax Court of Minnesota |
ORDER GRANTING THE COMMISSIONER'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
This matter came before The Honorable Jane N. Bowman, Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court, on December 29, 2020, on appellee Commissioner of Revenue's motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Appellant Bridgette Charmaine Williams is self-represented.
Jennifer A. Kitchak, Assistant Attorney General, represents appellee Commissioner of Revenue.
The court, upon all the files, records, and proceedings herein now makes the following:
This court grants the Commissioner of Revenue's motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirms the Commissioner's two March 3, 2020 Notices of Determination on Appeal concerning Ms. Williams's 2016 and 2017 property tax refund requests.
IT IS SO ORDERED. THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
On December 30, 2019, Ms. Williams filed Forms M1PR seeking property tax refunds based on rent paid in 2016 and 2017.[1] On January 7, 2020, the Commissioner of Revenue issued two Notices of Change, which denied the 2016 and 2017 rent refund requests on the ground that no refunds were allowable because the applications for refund were not filed within the time limit allowed by state law.[2]
On January 17, 2020, Ms. Williams sought administrative review of the two Notices of Change pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 270C.35.[3] In her administrative appeal, Ms. Williams conceded that her refund claims were filed late, explaining this was due to circumstances beyond her control. Ms. Williams explained she did not receive her Certificate of Rent Paid in time, because her initial landlord had passed away, and her new landlord spent the remaining time gaining legal rights to the property to release her Certificate. Ms. Williams also stated her own medical condition deterred her from timely filing.[4]
The Commissioner reviewed and denied the administrative appeal in two orders, both with Notice Dates of March 3, 2020.[5] In the orders, the Commissioner acknowledged the basis for the appeal-that the returns were filed late due to circumstances beyond Ms. Williams's control-and explained that, "while your circumstances mentioned in [the administrative appeal] are very unfortunate, we are respectfully denying your appeal because the statute does not provide for any exceptions to the one year limit for filing an original return." [6]
On April 16, 2020, Ms. Williams timely filed her appeal with this court.[7] The Notice of Appeal asserts that the physical or mental incapacity of Ms. Williams and her landlord "tolls the time of filing." [8] The Commissioner filed a Return and Answer on June 8, 2020, alleging that the refunds were correctly denied under Minnesota law.[9]
On June 24, 2020, the Commissioner brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12.03 of the Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure and Minnesota Rules Chapter 8610.0070, subpart 5.[10] The Commissioner claims that Ms. Williams did not set forth a legally sufficient claim entitling her to relief, and the Commissioner is entitled to judgment on the pleadings.[11] Although Ms. Williams did not file a formal response, she opposed the motion at a December 29, 2020 hearing.[12]
The Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings summarizes the statutes governing Minnesota's refund to renters. Under Minnesota law, "[a]ny claim for refund based on rent paid must be filed on or before August 15 of the year following the year in which the rent was paid." Minn. Stat. § 289A.18, subd. 5 (2020). A separate statute provides that "[a] property tax refund claim . . . is not allowed if the initial claim is filed more than one year after the original due date for filing the claim." Minn. Stat. § 289A.40, subd. 4 (2020). Interpreting these two statutes, this court has previously stated "[e]ffectively, then, section 289A.40 creates a filing deadline one year beyond the statutory due date for filing a property tax refund claim." Halonen v. Comm'r of Revenue, 2019 WL 2932260, at *2 (Minn. T.C. July 2, 2019) (emphasis in original).
Based on the foregoing, the due date for a 2017 property tax refund claim-the most recent tax year in issue-was August 15, 2018; the last-filing deadline was one year later, on August 15, 2019. Because Ms. Williams did not file the property tax refund claims for rent paid in 2016 and 2017 until December 2019, both claims were untimely. Consequently, the Commissioner denied Ms. Williams's claims.
In response, Ms. Williams argues that the doctrine of equitable tolling permits this court to toll the statutory time limit. She states that the death of her prior landlord and her medical conditions prevented her from timely filing her property tax refund claims. "The doctrine of equitable tolling allows a court to consider the merits of a claim when it would otherwise be barred by a statute of limitations." Sanchez v. State, 816 N.W.2d 550, 560 (Minn. 2012).
Unlike federal courts, however, which have adopted a "rebuttable presumption of equitable tolling" for statutory deadlines, Irwin v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95-96 (1990) (), the Minnesota Supreme Court has strictly construed time limitations for statutorily created rights: "[W]here a statute gives a new right of action, not existing at common law, and prescribes the time within which it may be enforced, the time so prescribed is a condition to its enforcement …." State v. Bies, 258 Minn. 139, 147, 103 N.W.2d 228, 235 (1960). Because the legislature has created the right, it has "the power to impose any restrictions it sees fit." Id. at 146, 103 N.W.2d at 234-35. Thus, when the time limitation conditioning a statutory right expires, "the action and the right of action no longer exist." Id. at 148, 103 N.W.2d at 236. See also Acton Constr. Co. v. Comm'r of Revenue, 391 N.W.2d 828, 835 (Minn. 1986) ( that a claim for refund of sales tax must be brought within the limitations period prescribed by statute). This court therefore does not have the authority to toll the unambiguous statutory deadline for property tax refund claims.
This court has previously come to the same conclusion in a case with nearly identical facts. Mays v. Comm'r of Revenue, 2001 WL 561335 ( that equitable tolling was unavailable to the taxpayer because the statutory deadline for a property tax refund claim had passed). In Mays, the court noted that the outcome might "appear unjust," id. at *2, and we reiterate that observation here. It is undisputed that Ms. Williams's filing delay was caused by the death of her prior landlord and her medical conditions, two issues which were out of her control.[13] But it is up to the legislature to allow for tolling in these circumstances.[14] Although we sympathize with Ms. Williams, we lack the authority to provide the relief she s...
To continue reading
Request your trial