Opinion
No. C4-97-835.
Filed December 2, 1997.
Appeal from the District Court, Ramsey County, File No. C2-96-8143.
Bradford Colbert, Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners, Lori Ray, Certified Student Attorney, (for appellant)
Hubert H Humphrey III, Attorney General, Stephen F. Simon, Assistant Attorney General, (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Kalitowski, Presiding Judge, Willis, Judge, and Thoreen, Judge.
This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996).
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant Robert Allen Hirt challenges the district court's summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Revenue. The district court held that the anti-injunction provision of Minn. Stat. § 297D.12, subd. 2 (1988), barred Hirt's declaratory judgment action. We affirm.
FACTS
Appellant Robert Allen Hirt was charged with a number of offenses including second-degree possession of a controlled substance and failure to affix drug stamps. On February 7, 1990, respondent Commissioner of Revenue (commissioner) sent a notice of assessment of marijuana and controlled substance tax to Hirt pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 297.12, subd. 1; 270.70; and 297.09 (1988). The assessment was for $20,000. Hirt failed to appeal the assessment before the mandated 60-day period expired.
Hirt was found guilty of second-degree possession of a controlled substance and failure to affix drug stamps, and he was sentenced to 112 months in prison. This court affirmed Hirt's conviction. State v. Hirt , No. C0-91-2083 (Minn.App. Aug. 4, 1992).
Hirt brought a declaratory judgment action claiming that Minnesota's controlled substance tax is unconstitutional as applied to him because it placed him twice in jeopardy for the same offense. The parties stipulated to the facts and submitted the matter on cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court ordered summary judgment for the commissioner, holding that the court had no jurisdiction because of the anti-injunction provision of the tax. See Minn. Stat. § 297D.12, subd. 2. This appeal followed.
DECISION
When the district court decides a case on stipulated facts, the only issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in its application of the law to the agreed facts. Johnson v. Western Nat'l Mut. Ins. Co. , 540 N.W.2d 78, 80 (Minn.App. 1995). Legal questions are reviewed de novo. Frost-Benco Elec. Ass'n v. Minnesota Pub. Utils. Comm'n , 358 N.W.2d 639, 642 (Minn. 1984).
Minnesota Statutes govern marijuana and controlled substance taxation and impose criminal penalties. Specifically, statutory law provides that "[n]o person may bring suit to enjoin the assessment or collection of any taxes, interest, or penalties imposed by this chapter." Minn. Stat. § 297D.12, subd. 2.
This court has analyzed the effect of a similar anti-injunction provision on a taxpayer's ability to seek declaratory relief. See M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Minnesota Comm'r of Revenue , 470 N.W.2d 126 (Minn.App. 1991). In Mortenson , a company attempted to appeal a sales tax assessment by seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from a district court. Id. at 127. In Mortenson , this court pointed out that "established statutory procedures" already provided Mortenson with two options for appealing the tax assessment. Id. at 130. First, the taxpayer could withhold payment of the disputed tax and appeal to the tax court. Id. (citing Minn. Stat. §§ 271.06, subd. 2; 271.09, subd. 3 (1988)). Second, the taxpayer could pay the tax and bring suit in district court for a refund. Id. (citing Minn. Stat. § 297A.35, subd. 2 (1988)). The availability of those options supplanted the injunctive and declaratory relief which the taxpayer sought. Id. at 130-31.
The supreme court has applied the same reasoning in other contexts. See, e.g., Krahl v. Nine Mile Creek Watershed Dist. , 283 N.W.2d 538, 544-45 (Minn. 1979) (holding that existing statutory appeal remedy for property tax assessment precluded injunctive and declaratory relief); Village of Edina v. Joseph , 264 Minn. 84, 100, 119 N.W.2d 809, 819 (1962) (holding same); Land O' Lakes Dairy Co. v. Village of Sebeka , 225 Minn. 540, 548-49, 31 N.W.2d 660, 664-65 (1948) (holding same).
The present case is similar to Mortenson . The anti-injunction provision of the controlled substances tax statute is nearly identical to the anti-injunction provision of the sales tax statute. Like the taxpayer in Mortenson , Hirt had the option to withhold payment of the tax and appeal to the tax court. See Minn. Stat. § 271.06, subd. 2 (Supp. 1989). Hirt had 60 days from the date of the commissioner's February 7, 1990, assessment to appeal.
Generally, "relief against erroneous or illegal assessments will not be granted by a court of equity, if the [taxpayer] has an adequate remedy at law." Village of Edina v. Joseph , 264 Minn. 84, 100, 119 N.W.2d 809, 819 (1962). Specifically, "[i]t is well established in this state that the court will not interfere by injunction where the remedies against an illegal tax provided by the general laws are available." Fichtner v. Schiller , 271 Minn. 263, 265, 135 N.W.2d 877, 879 (1965). There is an exception to these principles when a taxpayer challenges the constitutionality of a tax statute on its face. See Baertsch v. Minnesota Dep't of Revenue , 518 N.W.2d 21, 25 (Minn. 1994) (involving pre-enforcement challenge to facial constitutionality of tax provision in Minnesota Health Right Act).
Hirt attempts to distinguish Mortenson by stating that neither of the two remedies, i.e., (1) appeal to the Minnesota Tax Court or (2) file suit for refund of any taxes paid, provides an adequate remedy in his situation because neither could properly address the constitutionality issue at hand. Based on the stipulated facts, Hirt challenges the constitutionality of the tax statute as applied to him. Hirt does not challenge the constitutionality of the tax statute on its face. The exception, therefore, does not apply.